Evidence

Showing 526-1272 of 1272 messages
Evidence zoe_althrop 5/28/01 3:15 PM
Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.

Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
formation of the genetic code.  

If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
wonder.

Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
a loving God, as He claims to be.

Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
evolve in the face of entropy?  This does not make sense since it is
evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.  

Do we agree on this?  
 
--
zoe

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/28/01 3:35 PM
On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

No, we don't agree.  There's been plenty of positive free energy
around since the Sun started shining.  All the energy involved comes
from the Sun, directly or indirectly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
thermodynamics.  THis includes evolution.  However, it's extremely
difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
further, please post equations.

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence dkomo 5/28/01 3:55 PM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
> forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
> a loving God, as He claims to be.
>

...snip...


 
> Do we agree on this?
>

Nope, sorry, I cannot allow you skate on this.  Since you have just
brought forth the concept of "God" you *must* provide incontrovertable
and independently verifiable evidence of the existence of Him/Her/It.
Otherwise, I'm compelled to consign the rest of your arguments to the
realm of the merely assinine.

Fair is fair.  If you demand evidence and logical consistency of
science, then you should be ready to provide the same regarding the
realm of a hypothetical Supreme Being.


    --dk...@cris.com


P.S.  Just saying "I have faith that Him/Her/It exists" doesn't meet
the minimal standard standard of evidence.

Evidence leonardo dasso 5/28/01 6:05 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b12c62c.11126051@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> formation of the genetic code.

1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input of
energy.
2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for input
of energy?

> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
> wonder.
>
> Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
> forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
> a loving God, as He claims to be.

I have no idea what a creationist would wonder.

> Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
> evolve in the face of entropy?

No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
face of entropy". You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
adult individual "in the face of entropy"? Or, how can I stay alive, or how
can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.

>This does not make sense since it is
> evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
> required to drive the process is not spontaneous

Energy is not spontaneous, or non-spontaneous. Spontaneity refers to
physical processes.

>and does not find its
> source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do),

So according to you, plants are not biological organisms.

>but in the
> currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
> equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.

"ATP is an endergonic process"? ATP is not a process, it is a molecule. I
wonder if you understand what you are trying to say.


> Do we agree on this?
>

Of course not.
regards
leo

> --
> zoe
>


Evidence newbie 5/28/01 6:05 PM
In article <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop says...

>
>Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>formation of the genetic code.  
>
>If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
>code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
>wonder.
>
I think the 2LoT has been around since the Creator set the heavens and earth "in
motion." This would be before life was "set in motion." The best explanation I
have found for creationists 2LoT arguments is found halfway down the page at:
>
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
>
"Clearly, if life originates and makes evolurtionary progress without organizing
input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a
closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at,
when they mistakenly say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics.
This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen
continually in the neo-Darwinian account of evolutionary progress."
>
>Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>
My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a soul.
Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God -
the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an *addition*
to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God warned
them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance alone.
>
Hopefully you don't think I am preaching to you. These are my thoughts, and it
is not important that we agree spiritually, only that we agree in the belief in
God and his promise.
>
What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
evolved instinct. The "machine" part of life I can accept as being transmitted
through DNA, yet I do not see instinct, or thought, to be a natural material.
Perhaps this is a "life force", or soul, and is transmitted thru DNA, perhaps
not. I am looking for research that would shed light on instinct, and how it can
be transmitted genetically.
>
I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
unfalsifiable to them. They will say it is, yet if there were a challenge, it
would either be theoreticaly explained away, or they would claim that the
evidence just isn't in yet. The evolutionist answer to this question could be
that in the primordial soup, there was no need to "survive", that there were no
predators or environmental dangers.
>
[snip]

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/28/01 6:35 PM

Maybe that's the best explanation you have found, maybe it's the best
explanation anywhere.  It's wrong.  It's even incoherent.  It is
confusing Shannon entropy with thermodynamic entropy.  They are very
different things.

<http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html>
<http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html>
<http://www.escape.ca/~acc/reading/evol.html>
<http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/text.html>
<http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/CRC/>
<snip>

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence Boikat 5/28/01 6:45 PM

No.  There was plenty of energy transfer present
to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
activity (probably from some chemical activity
too.).

You said something about "evidence"...?

Boikat

Evidence Tom H. 5/28/01 6:55 PM
> Do we agree on this?

No...


Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/28/01 7:05 PM
On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed


>before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.


how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?

>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>formation of the genetic code.

which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
we KNOW the universe is older than the earth. we know the SLOT was
operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
on stars older than the earth).

so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.


 
>
>Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>
>Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>evolve in the face of entropy?

because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
populations does not violate the SLOT.
'


 This does not make sense since it is
>evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
>source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
>currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.  
>
>Do we agree on this?  

no. you need a firmer grasp of science before you can argue. your
basis assumption...that biological processes violate the SLOT...is
absolutely wrong.

>

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/28/01 7:10 PM
On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>>
>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>evolved instinct.

wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
no instincts yet we're fairly successful.

>>
>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>unfalsifiable to them.

since you're wrong about life needing instincts, perhaps, as a
creationist, you'll take some of your own medicine and tell us why
your magical/superstitious view of life...which requires
'instincts'...has any validity at all. its totally wrong.

Evidence dkomo 5/28/01 7:20 PM
newbie wrote:

> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a soul.
> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God -
> the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an *addition*
> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God warned
> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance alone.
> >

And how exactly did you figure all this out?  Can you present any
evidence for these conclusions?  You sure are demanding when it comes
to asking evidence of science.  It seems to me that any intelligent,
rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
criticize.

I await your answer with baited breath.  I have always wanted to know
for certain whether or not God creates machines with "the breath of
life", or, indeed, whether He even exists. And I'm sure you, as a true
believer, can provide evidence -- nay, even some logical justification
-- for such assertions.

Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs.  I'm
sure you wouldn't want to let Him down (the consequences could be
dire), and so, no doubt, you'll shortly be providing us with an
abundance of evidence in these matters.

   
      --dk...@cris.com

Evidence muju51 5/28/01 7:35 PM
In article <nhu5htsabbolmmab2qik4pq8l0lk5t2abs@4ax.com>, Jon Fleming says...I am not interested in using 2LoT to disprove evolution; the link was included
only to show what I think the overall or general pattern of creationists
thoughts are about the subject.
>
But I will keep the links, thanks. But I disagree that the article confuses
"Shannon" entropy with thermodynamic entropy, and does explain they are
different. This is explicitly explained in the article. Here is one excerpt:
>
"This sort of entropy is clearly different. Physical units do not pertain to it,
and (except in the case of digitalinformation) an arbitrary convention must be
imposed before it can be quantified. To distinguish this kind of entropy from
thermodynamic entropy, let's call it logical entropy."

Evidence muju51 5/28/01 9:40 PM
In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...

>
>newbie wrote:
>
>> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a >>soul.
>> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God
>>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
>> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
>> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
>> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an >>*addition*
>> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
>> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God >>warned
>> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance >>alone.
>>
>
>And how exactly did you figure all this out?
>  
Microsoft calculator.

>
>Can you present any
>evidence for these conclusions?
>
Need a def of philosophy?

>
>You sure are demanding when it comes
>to asking evidence of science.
>
You also seem to need an understanding of what demanding means. This statement
shows your willingness to make accusations against others without the desire to
show any evidence.

>
>It seems to me that any intelligent,
>rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
>for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
>criticize.
>
Seems to me that you got one right - probably by sheer accident.

>
>I await your answer with baited breath.
>  
I never would have guessed. I *believe* you do.

>
>I have always wanted to know
>for certain whether or not God creates machines with "the breath of
>life", or, indeed, whether He even exists.
>
Sounds like a personal quest. So you do not know "for certain." But you know
enough to be a sarcastic ass. Sounds like your idea of what a creationist thinks
when arguing against evolution.

>
>And I'm sure you, as a true
>believer, can provide evidence -- nay, even some logical justification
>-- for such assertions.
>
I have logical justification of my basic belief. As to what I wrote above, you
snipped the part where I state that these are only thoughts.

>
>Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
>total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs.  I'm
>sure you wouldn't want to let Him down
>
Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong. THere are those that
"accept" evolution without having fully investigated the very complex
evolutionary theor(ies), and genetics, yet you would think them "right" even if
they thought natural selection was a fossil.

>
>(the consequences could be dire),
>
The consequences of letting God down because I fail to provide scientific proof
of His existence would be dire? Perhaps you will come back later after
revisiting basic Christian theology.

>
>and so, no doubt, you'll shortly be providing us with an
>abundance of evidence in these matters.
>
I owe you nothing. You are aware or have the resources to be aware of my God's
message and the ability to find your own answers. You most likely have access to
a Bible - it is not a scientific journal article that is hard or expensive to
obtain, and is not hard to read, or technical in nature.
>
Any thing I would explain, any perceptions and experiences of mine would be the
focus for more of your ridicule and sarcasm.
>
I have said before on this newsgroup that I will not discuss the reasons for my
belief because of this. I seriously doubt that you would even acknowledge what I
have written here as sincere, and will try to find holes in which to spill your
hatred or bias against religious belief.

Evidence muju51 5/28/01 10:05 PM
In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>evolved instinct.
>
>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>
Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>
>>>
>>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>>unfalsifiable to them.
>
>since you're wrong about life needing instincts, perhaps, as a
>creationist, you'll take some of your own medicine and tell us why
>your magical/superstitious view of life...which requires
>'instincts'...has any validity at all. its totally wrong.
>
Since you have done nothing but say "nuh - uh," you are just typing meaningless
garbage - typical for evoultionists like you.
>
In my last post I said that evolutionists would never even consider what I
wrote, yet I did not include that at least one would call it a
"magical/superstitious view."
>
I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>
I will just leave him with a little dose of his own medicine:
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm
>
"It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal
structures for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of
life."
>
"As some degree of variation in instincts under a state of nature, and the
inheritance of such variations, are indispensable for the action of natural
selection, as many instances as possible ought to be given; but want of
space prevents me."

Evidence H,R.Gruemm 5/28/01 10:20 PM
newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<mSDQ6.3168$rn5.1...@www.newsranger.com>...

<snip>
> I am not interested in using 2LoT to disprove evolution; the link was included
> only to show what I think the overall or general pattern of creationists
> thoughts are about the subject.
> >
> But I will keep the links, thanks. But I disagree that the article confuses
> "Shannon" entropy with thermodynamic entropy, and does explain they are
> different. This is explicitly explained in the article. Here is one excerpt:
> >
> "This sort of entropy is clearly different. Physical units do not pertain to it,
> and (except in the case of digitalinformation) an arbitrary convention must be
> imposed before it can be quantified. To distinguish this kind of entropy from
> thermodynamic entropy, let's call it logical entropy."

But although they have realized that there is a distinction, the
creationists then blithely claim that there is an analogy of the 2LoT
for their "logical entropy". This is obviously wrong, as any
radioactive substance demonstrates: it is a rich source of
information.

Regards,
HRG.

Evidence Bigdakine 5/28/01 10:20 PM
>Subject: Evidence
>From: zoe_a...@hotmail.com  (zoe_althrop)
>Date: 5/28/01 12:10 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>

>
>Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>formation of the genetic code.  

How about I throw you into the pit of Halemaumau crater and you let me know if
you *feel* any free energy..


Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

Evidence Bill Thomas 5/29/01 3:00 AM

"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b12c62c.11126051@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
The above (and the part that was snipped below) is complete
twaddle. The 2LOT arises directly as an emergent result of the
behaviour of ensembles of particles in QED.  Nothing about
present day life violates the 2LOT. If such were found to be
the case, physicists would immediately throw out the second
law as it would be refuted on the spot.

Since all the evidence indicates that life in the past followed the
much the same processes as life today, there is no likelyhood that life
in the past disobeyed the 2LOT either.

Futhermore,  there is no reason to require a violation of the 2LOT
to allow for abiogenesis. Although the exact process of abiogenesis
that led to life on Earth may never be known. There was plenty of
energy available from the Sun to keep the earth well away from
equilibrium with deep space.

  Regards Bill

<Rest snipped>


Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 3:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 00:37:11 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>>
>Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
>themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
>exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
>idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong. THere are those that
>"accept" evolution without having fully investigated the very complex
>evolutionary theor(ies), and genetics, yet you would think them "right" even if
>they thought natural selection was a fossil.

and there are those who accept creationism merely because their
preacher told them it was true.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 3:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>>evolved instinct.
>>
>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>
>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.

well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
further demonstration of that fact.

when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.

>>
>>
>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.

humans have no instincts
humans have life
therefore you're disproven.

QED.

>>
>I will just leave him with a little dose of his own medicine:
>>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm

habits are not instincts. again, you havent proven that humans have
instincts.

>>
>"It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal
>structures for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of
>life."
>>

this is what darwin actually said from YOUR URL:

>I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be
>                     easy to show that several distinct mental actions are
>                     commonly embraced by this term; but every one
>                     understands what is meant, when it is said that
>                     instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her
>                     eggs in other birds' nests.

he doesnt define instinct beyond 'habits'. neither do you. so you rely
on a typical creationist trick...take something out of context from
150 yrs ago, and pretend it has rigorous scientific meaning today.

its not surprising in darwin's overwhelming and comprehensive survey
of nature that some things (such as 'race') had a different meaning
then than they do now. you simply fail to keep up with terminology.

as i said, find a behavior in humans that's instinctive. you havent
presented any, yet your argument hinges on it.

Evidence muju51 5/29/01 4:10 AM
In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. >>>>Basic to
>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant >>>>reproduce
>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did
>>>>life "evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival  
>>>>before it evolved instinct.
>>>
>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>
>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>
>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>further demonstration of that fact.
>
From the ad homenim master.

>
>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>
You really are a joke, wf3h. Sure you are not a janitor? You made a statement,
you "prove" it.

>
>>>
>>>
>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>
>humans have no instincts
>humans have life
>therefore you're disproven.
>
>QED.
>
You are a real moron.
>
>>>
>>I will just leave him with a little dose of his own medicine:
>>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm
>
>habits are not instincts. again, you havent proven that humans have
>instincts.
>
And you can't read.

>
>>>
>>"It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal
>>structures for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of
>>life."
>>>
>
>this is what darwin actually said from YOUR URL:
>
What I copied from MY URL is what Darwin actually said.

>
>>I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be
>>                     easy to show that several distinct mental actions are
>>                     commonly embraced by this term; but every one
>>                     understands what is meant, when it is said that
>>                     instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her
>>                     eggs in other birds' nests.
>
>he doesnt define instinct beyond 'habits'. neither do you. so you rely
>on a typical creationist trick...take something out of context from
>150 yrs ago, and pretend it has rigorous scientific meaning today.
>
Where is the word "habit" in your little quote? And you talk about tricks? Of
course you are not taking out of context, and what you offer is rigorous

scientific meaning today.
>
>its not surprising in darwin's overwhelming and comprehensive survey
>of nature that some things (such as 'race') had a different meaning
>then than they do now. you simply fail to keep up with terminology.
>
Off in outer space so soon, wf3h?
>
>as i said, find a behavior in humans that's instinctive. you havent
>presented any, yet your argument hinges on it.
>
Sorry, dipstick. I did not mention humans, you did. Just get the box of LARGE
bandaids back out and fix the wound on your head again.

Evidence muju51 5/29/01 4:15 AM
In article <3b137aee...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...I agree. Probably a larger percentage of them than of evolutionists I described.
And I also think that is about as far as your mentality can take you. Your next
post will likely include "You creationists, you..."

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 5:40 AM
On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
rock pusher, is it?

>All the energy involved comes
>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>

the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
on the table at the moment.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
>thermodynamics.

my original position in this thread is not how 2LoT affects us today,
but its chronological sequence with the genetic code, which code must
have been in place in non-spontaneous fashion BEFORE 2LoT kicked in.

> THis includes evolution.  However, it's extremely
>difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
>about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
>further, please post equations.
>

hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
mathematician.  At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate, is not a
mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
works.  

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 6:00 AM
On 28 May 2001 18:50:36 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>> the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>> forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>> a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>
>
>...snip...
>
>> Do we agree on this?
>>
>
>Nope, sorry, I cannot allow you skate on this.  Since you have just
>brought forth the concept of "God" you *must* provide incontrovertable
>and independently verifiable evidence of the existence of Him/Her/It.

you're easily diverted from the point, I see.  

 
>Otherwise, I'm compelled to consign the rest of your arguments to the
>realm of the merely assinine.
>

dkomo, I want you to feel free to consign my arguments to whatever
realm you wish.   But please know that the purpose of this thread is
to present evidence for one thing only -- that the genetic code must
have preceded 2LoT.  "Sequence" is what I am proffering on this
thread.  Can we stay with that?

My mention of God was only in the context of how anybody might relate
to the evidence, creationist and evolutionist alike.  If you're a
creationist, then this may be how you would think -- and with no
effort to make the evolutionist think in like manner.  If you're an
evolutionist, then this is how you might think, with no effort to make
the creationist think in like manner.  

The bottom line is, how would anybody relate to the origins of the
genetic code and the origins of 2LoT?

>Fair is fair.  If you demand evidence and logical consistency of
>science, then you should be ready to provide the same regarding the
>realm of a hypothetical Supreme Being.
>
>

have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?  Of
course, you know where I stand on this, but it IS possible to discuss
science in a logical, consistent manner without appealing to either
your philosophy or mine.

So, once again, the evidence:  

In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 6:20 AM
On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

snip>


>>
>I think the 2LoT has been around since the Creator set the heavens and earth "in
>motion." This would be before life was "set in motion." The best explanation I
>have found for creationists 2LoT arguments is found halfway down the page at:
>>
>http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
>>
>"Clearly, if life originates and makes evolurtionary progress without organizing
>input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a
>closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at,
>when they mistakenly say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics.
>This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen
>continually in the neo-Darwinian account of evolutionary progress."

hmmm, I don't think I hold to the concept that life violates the
second law of thermodynamics.  There are many non-spontaneous
activities that cause entropy to decrease in one area, while
increasing entropy elsewhere.  So it is possible for entropy to
decrease, without violating the 2LoT.  

What I am proffering here is an origins question having to do with
sequence.

>>
>>Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>
>My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a soul.
>Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God -
>the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
>perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
>problem they ran into.

agreed -- except I would take that life span out to eternity, which
apparently was the original plan.

>Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
>physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an *addition*
>to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
>2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God warned
>them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance alone.

interesting.

>>
>Hopefully you don't think I am preaching to you. These are my thoughts, and it
>is not important that we agree spiritually, only that we agree in the belief in
>God and his promise.

sure.  I don't go for the quarreling-over-doctrine bit.  Questions
asked?  I'll answer to the best of my ability.  Beyond that, you're on
your own.

>>
>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>evolved instinct. The "machine" part of life I can accept as being transmitted
>through DNA, yet I do not see instinct, or thought, to be a natural material.
>Perhaps this is a "life force", or soul, and is transmitted thru DNA, perhaps
>not. I am looking for research that would shed light on instinct, and how it can
>be transmitted genetically.

I'd be interested in what research you dig up on this.  I haven't
thought much about that area, to be honest.

>>
>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>unfalsifiable to them. They will say it is, yet if there were a challenge, it
>would either be theoreticaly explained away, or they would claim that the
>evidence just isn't in yet. The evolutionist answer to this question could be
>that in the primordial soup, there was no need to "survive", that there were no
>predators or environmental dangers.

do they really say this?  I kind of doubt that one.

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 6:55 AM
On 28 May 2001 21:02:05 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b12c62c.11126051@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>
>> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>> non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>> formation of the genetic code.
>
>1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input of
>energy.
>2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for input
>of energy?
>

ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
empowered.  They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.
Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions, then if the genetic
coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

>> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
>> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
>> wonder.
>>
>> Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>> the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>> forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>> a loving God, as He claims to be.
>
>I have no idea what a creationist would wonder.
>

and you're not required to have an idea.  That paragraph was directed
to those who believe in creation.  

>> Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>> evolve in the face of entropy?
>
>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
>face of entropy".

yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past.  I'm talking
origins here, though.  

> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?

no, I wouldn't wonder that.  The mechanism is in place and we see it
work every day.

>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.
>

agreed.  I am not asking THOSE questions.

>>This does not make sense since it is
>> evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>> required to drive the process is not spontaneous
>
>Energy is not spontaneous, or non-spontaneous. Spontaneity refers to
>physical processes.
>

okay, I stand corrected.  Would it be better for me to use the terms
"exergonic processes" and "endergonic processes"?  Exergonic meaning
spontaneous, and endergonic meaning non-spontaneous?

>>and does not find its
>> source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do),
>
>So according to you, plants are not biological organisms.
>

well, my beret must be slipping, as usual.  I really meant biological
to refer to the animal kingdom and figured botanical would refer to
the plant kingdom.  Should I call them all biological then?

>>but in the
>> currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>> equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
>
>"ATP is an endergonic process"? ATP is not a process, it is a molecule. I
>wonder if you understand what you are trying to say.
>

no, I'm saying that the charged battery is an endergonic process, not
that ATP is an endergonic process.  I am saying that the same way the
charging of a battery is an endergonic process, so is the creation of
ATP from ADP an endergonic process.  Am I still wrong?

>
>> Do we agree on this?
>>
>
>Of course not.

lol -- as if I really expected you to agree.  

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 7:00 AM
On 28 May 2001 21:44:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

snip>
>
>No.  There was plenty of energy transfer present
>to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
>biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
>activity (probably from some chemical activity
>too.).
>

is that positive free energy, or just plain free energy?  Gibbs free
energy, maybe -- do I have to research that, too?  Okay, hang on....

>You said something about "evidence"...?
>

yes, evidence for positive free energy in the genetic coding system.

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 7:05 AM
On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:

snip>
>
>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>

I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>formation of the genetic code.
>
>which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
>we KNOW the universe is older than the earth.

I agree with you, that the universe is older than the earth.  What's
the problem here?

> we know the SLOT was
>operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>on stars older than the earth).
>

I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
of the universe?  Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
(as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?


>so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.
>
>>
>>Creationist:  ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/29/01 7:10 AM
On 29 May 2001 01:15:52 -0400, bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
wrote:

>>Subject: Evidence
>>From: zoe_a...@hotmail.com  (zoe_althrop)
>>Date: 5/28/01 12:10 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
>>
>>Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>>before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>
>>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.


>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>formation of the genetic code.  
>
>How about I throw you into the pit of Halemaumau crater and you let me know if
>...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 7:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 08:36:56 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>No, we don't agree.  There's been plenty of positive free energy
>>around since the Sun started shining.  
>
>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>rock pusher, is it?

you bet it is. it has energy.

>
>>All the energy involved comes
>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>
>
>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>on the table at the moment.

since the nuclear reactions on the sun are spontaneous, and releasing
much free energy, they can drive reactions on earth to non spontaneous
reactions.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 7:40 AM
On 29 May 2001 07:14:31 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b137aee...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 29 May 2001 00:37:11 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
>>>themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
>>>exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
>>>idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong. THere are those that
>>>"accept" evolution without having fully investigated the very complex
>>>evolutionary theor(ies), and genetics, yet you would think them "right" even if
>>>they thought natural selection was a fossil.
>>
>>and there are those who accept creationism merely because their
>>preacher told them it was true.
>>
>I agree. Probably a larger percentage of them than of evolutionists I described.
>And I also think that is about as far as your menta...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 7:40 AM
On 29 May 2001 07:05:50 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. >>>>Basic to
>>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant >>>>reproduce
>>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did
>>>>>life "evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival  
>>>>>before it evolved instinct.
>>>>
>>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>>
>>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>>
>>well, cre...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 7:45 AM
On 29 May 2001 10:02:41 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>>
>
>I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

and so am i. we have proof that the SLOT precedes life on earth.


>
>
>> we know the SLOT was
>>operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>>on stars older than the earth).
>>
>
>I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
>of the universe?  Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
>(as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?

we can measure nuclear processes in stars. i realize to creationists,
the universe was created as a disorderly place, with random laws of
nature popping up every day. there is no proof this occurs

you require the laws of the univers...

Evidence dkomo 5/29/01 8:11 AM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?

You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under
the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
a loving God, as He claims to be."

This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
Being.  The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
that's why I challenged you to present some.  But, I'll accept your
explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
hundreds of times already.
 
> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
> philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
> arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?
>

There's *no* possibility that it could happened any other way.  The
2Lot was already around at the moment the universe came into existence
in the Big Bang.

Y...

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 5/29/01 8:45 AM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>rock pusher, is it?

The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
falls back to earth as well.

Regards,
Nantko (just 750 kg/m2 of rain per year, where I live)
--
There is nothing so self-defeating as generosity: in the act of practising it,
you lose the ability to do so, and you become either poor and despised or,
seeking to avoid poverty, rapacious and hated. (Machiavelli, The Prince)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/

Evidence Derek Stevenson 5/29/01 9:10 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b139472.63939940@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> wrote:

[snip]

> > However, it's extremely
> >difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
> >about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
> >further, please post equations.
>
> hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
> mathematician.  At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
> genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate, is not a
> mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
> the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
> works.

"Observation" is obviously the wrong word here.

I'm not sure whether "misunderstanding" or "ignorance" would be a better
fit, but I'm sure it will become clear in short order.

Evidence Derek Stevenson 5/29/01 9:25 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b13aa81.69587337@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:

> >how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
> >violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>
> I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
reproduction today?

> >>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> >>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> >>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> >>formation of the genetic code.
> >
> >which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
> >we KNOW the universe is older than the earth.
>
> I agree with you, that the universe is older than the earth.  What's
> the problem here?

The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as the
universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on earth
is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.

> > we know the SLOT was
> >operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
> >on stars older than the earth).
>
> I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
> of the universe?  Or are you saying that you'r...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/29/01 10:15 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 28 May 2001 21:02:05 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>wrote:


>
>>
>>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b12c62c.11126051@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

>>> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>>> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>>
>>> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>> non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>>> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>>> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>> formation of the genetic code.
>>
>>1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input of
>>energy.
>>2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for input
>>of energy?

>ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
>empowered.  They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.
>Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions,

Point of clarification: Do you mean thermodynamically spontaneous or
spontaneous as in frequently occurring in nature? You see, evolution does base
itself on things that occur in nature, yes, but these things that occur in
nature are often not thermodynamically spontaneous.

>then if the genetic
>coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
>if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

There are ways to thermodynamically couple energy to a system other than the
ones currently in use by metabolism. If you have a solution of amino acids, you
can evaporate the water and you'll get amino acid chains. You see, the removed
water has payed the entropy tax for the chains to exist.

Our metabolism still betrays what may be a remnant of this system. To bind
amino acids together, you remove a hydrogen from one of them and a hydroxyl
group from the other, which releases a water molecule as the two acids bind.

<snip>

>>> Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>> evolve in the face of entropy?

>>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
>>face of entropy".

>yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past.  I'm ...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/29/01 10:25 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?

>I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

But the second law applied whenever there were chemicals capable of reacting
with each other. I think that threshold was crossed long before there was an
earth.

>>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>>formation of the genetic code.

>>which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
>>we KNOW the universe is older than the earth.

>I agree with you, that the universe is older than the earth.  What's
>the problem here?

That you seem to think the genetic code is older than the universe.

>> we know the SLOT was
>>operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>>on stars older than the earth).

>I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
>of the universe?  Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
>(as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to t...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/29/01 10:30 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>>How about I throw you into the pit of Ha...

Evidence leonardo dasso 5/29/01 10:45 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b13a20b.67421558@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 21:02:05 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b12c62c.11126051@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> >> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> >> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
> >>
> >> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> >> non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
> >> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> >> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> >> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> >> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> >> formation of the genetic code.
> >
> >1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input
of
> >energy.
> >2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for
input
> >of energy?
> >
>
> ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
> empowered.

ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
"empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in a
living cell -in the form of ATP- is:  biosynthetic pathways, processes that
involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.

>They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.

What are not "spontaneous mechanisms"?

> Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions, then if the genetic


> coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
> positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
> if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
> free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

The sun, my friend. It has been shining on this earth for billions of years.


> >> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> >> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
> >> wonder.
> >>
> >> Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under


> >> the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
> >> forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
> >> a loving God, as He claims to be.
> >
> >I have no idea what a creationist would wonder.
> >
>
> and you're not required to have an idea.  That paragraph was directed
> to those who believe in creation.
>
> >> Evolutionist:  (Sh...

Evidence leonardo dasso 5/29/01 10:55 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b139472.63939940@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
> rock pusher, is it?

Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.

1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction has a
positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.

2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis. Then the cows eat
the plants, synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
carbon sources in the plant. T...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/29/01 11:30 AM
On 29 May 2001 10:02:41 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:


>
>snip>
>>
>>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>>
>
>I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.
>

you didnt answer the question. i notice creationists generally dodge
questions.

you're just another one who cant answer the fatal flaws in the
creationist argument.

the question is:

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS WAS DIFFERENT IN THE PAST??

you wont answer. creationists are just theological thugs. you're no
different.

Evidence Boikat 5/29/01 11:45 AM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2001 21:44:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >No.  There was plenty of energy transfer present
> >to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
> >biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
> >activity (probably from some chemical activity
> >too.).
> >
>
> is that positive free energy, or just plain free energy?  Gibbs free
> energy, maybe -- do I have to research that, too?  Okay, hang on....

What is energy from the sun?  What is energy from
geothermal activity? (and from chemical activity?)

>
> >You said something about "evidence"...?
> >
>
> yes, evidence for positive free energy in the genetic coding system.

Where's the evidence you claimed?  I saw word
games with thermodynamics, I didn't see "evidence"
to support your claim.

Boikat


>
> --
> zoe

Evidence Ken Cox 5/29/01 12:15 PM
zoe_althrop wrote:
> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in.

Oh, dear.  This could be a problem, since the only reason
that protein translation works is the second law.  Without
that, there is neither favorability for anti-codon bindings
nor direction to the chemical reactions.  So can I expect
an explanation for how the genetic code operated without
the second law?

Hmm, after reading the rest, apparently not.  It seems I
cannot even expect any evidence that the genetic code must
have existed before the second law -- or at least, there
isn't any argument to that effect in the rest of Zoe's
article.

--
Ken Cox                  k...@research.bell-labs.com

Evidence Noelie S. Alito 5/29/01 2:05 PM
"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3b13df8b$0$12242$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...

>
> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b13a20b.67421558@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

<snip millionth example of ZA's tortured facts and logic>

> > ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
> > empowered.
>
> ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
> mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
> "empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in a
> living cell -in the form of ATP- is:  biosynthetic pathways, processes
that
> involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.


How can you people stand doing this, post after post after post?
Is it because she's polite?  Is it because she continually creates
new fantasy physics and biology rather than reasserting the same
dry mistake?

Of course, I only sample these threads about every...

Evidence dkomo 5/29/01 2:05 PM
Nantko Schanssema wrote:
>
> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
>
> >positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> >rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> >this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
> >rock pusher, is it?
>
> The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
> vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
> falls back to earth as well.
>

Yep, and sometimes that water vapor comes back down to earth in a rush
within a limited area, as in a mountain canyon with a creek flowing
through it.  Then you get a flash flood which tends to push a *lot* of
rocks around, and people too if they're unlucky enough to be there.
See the Big Thompson Canyon disaster in Colorado or the Rapid City,
S.D. flood.


     --dk...@cris.com

Evidence dkomo 5/29/01 3:00 PM
newbie wrote:
>
> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
> >
> >newbie wrote:
> >
> >> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a >>soul.
> >> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God
> >>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
> >> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
> >> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
> >> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an >>*addition*
> >> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
> >> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God >>warned
> >> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
> >> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
> >> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance >>alone.
> >>
> >
> >And how exactly did you figure all this out?
> >
> Microsoft calculator.

That figures (no pun intended).  Microsoft doesn't make calculators
and never has.  So, you did your figuring on an imaginary calculator
and the results speak for themselves.

> >
> >Can you present any
> >evidence for these conclusions?
> >
> Need a def of philosophy?
> >

If what you posted is an example of philosophy, then you must think
philosophy is a branch of fiction writing.

> >You sure are demanding when it comes
> >to asking evidence of science.
> >
> You also seem to need an understanding of what demanding means. This statement
> shows your willingness to make accusations against others without the desire to
> show any evidence.
> >
> >It seems to me that any intelligent,
> >rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
> >for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
> >criticize.
> >
> Seems to me that you got one right - probably by sheer accident.

Good, so let's see the evidence for your belief system.

> >Surely, if He d...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/29/01 3:35 PM
From dkomo:

>newbie wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
>> >
>> >newbie wrote:
>> >
>> >> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a
>>>soul.
>> >> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of
>God
>> >>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to
>"dust".
>> >> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the
>little
>> >> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual,
>not
>> >> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an
>>>*addition*
>> >> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of
>the
>> >> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God
>>>warned
>> >> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>> >> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>> >> consumption of that thing that caused p...

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/29/01 3:50 PM
On 29 May 2001 08:36:56 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)


>>wrote:
>>
>>>Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>>>before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>>
>>>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>>non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
>>>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>>formation of the genetic code.  
>>>
>>>If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
>>>code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
>>>wonder.
>>>
>>>Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>>>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>>>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>>
>>>Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>>evolve in the face of entropy?  This does not make sense since it is
>>>evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>>>required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
>>>source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
>>>currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>>>equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.  
>>>
>>>Do we agree on this?  
>>>
>>
>>No, we don't agree.  There's been plenty of positive free energy
>>aro...

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/29/01 3:55 PM
On 29 May 2001 17:02:59 -0400, "Noelie S. Alito"
<noe...@nospam.jump.net> wrote:

>"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
>news:3b13df8b$0$12242$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3b13a20b.67421558@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
><snip millionth example of ZA's tortured facts and logic>
>
>> > ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
>> > empowered.
>>
>> ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
>> mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
>> "empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in a
>> living cell -in the form of ATP- is:  biosynthetic pathways, processes
>that
>> involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.
>
>
>How can you people stand doing this, post after post after post?
>Is it because she's polite?

That's part of it.

> Is it because she continually creates
>new...

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/29/01 3:55 PM

>>>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER...

Evidence Ronald Okimoto 5/29/01 4:10 PM

zoe_althrop wrote:

> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>

Snip:

Nathan Urban:

Explain the second law to Zoe and Newbie and get them to believe you and
I'll concede that your methodology is better than mine.;-)

Ron Okimoto

Evidence newbie 5/29/01 5:00 PM
In article <3B141CF5...@cris.com>, dkomo says...

>
>newbie wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
>> >
>> >newbie wrote:
>> >
>> >> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a >>soul.
>> >> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God
>> >>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
>> >> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
>> >> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
>> >> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an >>*addition*
>> >> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
>> >> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God >>warned
>> >> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>> >> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>> >> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance >>alone.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And how exactly did you figure all this out?
>> >
>> Microsoft calculator.
>
>That figures (no pun intended).  Microsoft doesn't make calculators
>and never has.  So, you did your figuring on an imaginary calculator
>and the results speak for themselves.
>
Perhaps they do. Get a copy of Windows. Choose
Start/Programs/Accessories/Calculator. After Calculator opens, click on help
then "About Calculator." It may surprise you to find you don't know everything
you thought you knew.

>
>> >
>> >Can you present any
>> >evidence for these conclusions?
>> >
>> Need a def of philosophy?
>> >
>
>If what you posted is an example of philosophy, then you must think
>philosophy is a branch of fiction writing.
>
Think of the Bible that way if you wish.

>
>> >You sure are demanding when it comes
>> >to asking evidence of science.
>> >
>> You also seem to need an understanding of what demanding means. This statement
>> shows your willingness to make accusations against others without the desire to
>> show any evidence.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that any intelligent,
>> >rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
>> >for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
>> >criticize.
>> >
>> Seems to me that you got one right - probably by sheer accident.
>
>Good, so let's see the evidence for your belief system.
>
Would you expect to be able to convince another of your belief if that other is
not rationally-integrated? You do not think I am, I do not think you are.
>
>> >Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
>> >total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs.  I'm
>> >sure you wouldn't want to let Him down

>> >
>> Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
>> themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
>> exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
>> idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong.
>
>Inte...
Evidence leonardo dasso 5/29/01 5:50 PM

Noelie S. Alito <noe...@nospam.jump.net> wrote in message
news:9f12q3$pe$1@news.jump.net...

> "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
> news:3b13df8b$0$12242$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3b13a20b.67421558@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
> <snip millionth example of ZA's tortured facts and logic>
>
> > > ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
> > > empowered.
> >
> > ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what
you
> > mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
> > "empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in
a
> > living cell -in the form of ATP- is:  biosynthetic pathways, processes
> that
> > involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.
>
>
> How can you people stand doing this, post after post after post?
> Is it because she's polite?  Is it because she continually create...
Evidence dkomo 5/29/01 5:50 PM
Gyudon Z wrote:
>
> From dkomo:
>
> >newbie wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
> >> >
> >> >newbie wrote:
> >> >

> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >And how exactly did you figure all this out?
> >> >
> >> Microsoft calculator.
> >
> >That figures (no pun intended).  Microsoft doesn't make calculators
> >and never has.  So, you did your figuring on an imaginary calculator
> >and the results speak for themselves.
>
> Oh, you've walked into it now. Start button>programs>accessories>calculator.
>
> Of course, what that really is is using a Pentium as a calculator (it is one,
> but actually using it as one is something different).
>
> Now he has something to hold over *your* head for the rest of eternity or until
> he loses interest, whichever comes first.
>
> What I want to know, though, is what sequence of keys he pressed on this
> wonderful calculator that led to his conclusion.
>

No, I knew about the Windows calculator, as does any Windows user, but
th...

Evidence Tom Moyer 5/29/01 6:00 PM

"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:jxCQ6.3092$rn5.174054@www.newsranger.com...
<snip>

> What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours.
Basic to
> evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant
reproduce
> if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How
did life
> "evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival
before it
> evolved instinct. The "machine" part of life I can accept as being
transmitted
> through DNA, yet I do not see instinct, or thought, to be a natural
material.
> Perhaps this is a "life force", or soul, and is transmitted thru DNA,
perhaps
> not. I am looking for research that would shed light on instinct, and how
it can
> be transmitted genetically.
> >
> I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
> unfalsifiable to them. They will say it is, yet if there were a challenge,
it
> would either be theoreticaly explained away, or they would claim that the
> evidence just isn't in yet. The evolutionist answer to this question could
be
> that in the primordial soup, there was no need to "survive", that there
were no
> predators or environmental dangers.
> >
> [snip]
>
This is oversimplified for illustrative purposes.  Please don't pick on
practical reality.  I'm deliberately leaving out details required for a
"real" system in the interest of clarity.

Imagine a population of dogs where none of them have any instincts.  They
just run around in their field or wherever, eating whatever they happen to
bump into.

Now, within any population, there are slight genetic differences among the
individuals.  Take odors, for instance.  Two people can smell the same
chemical and disagree widely on the pleasantness of it.  Some don't mind it,
some hate it, some like it.  The same would be true of this population of
dogs.

Suppose that one of these dogs had a preference for th...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/29/01 6:10 PM
From dkomo:

>No, I knew about the Wi...

Evidence muju51 5/29/01 7:30 PM
In article <20010529210546.15527.00003549@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From dkomo:
>
>>Gyudon Z wrote:
>>>
>>> From dkomo:
>>>
>>> >newbie wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >newbie wrote:
>>> >> >
>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >And how exactly did you figure all this out?
>>> >> >
>>> >> Microsoft calculator.
>>> >
>>> >That figures (no pun intended).  Microsoft doesn't make calculators
>>> >and never has.  So, you did your figuring on an imaginary calculator
>>> >and the results speak for themselves.
>>>
>>> Oh, you've walked into it now. Start
>>button>programs>accessories>calculator.
>>>
>>> Of course, what that really is is using a Pentium as a calculator (it is
>>one,
>>> but actually using it as one is something different).
>>>
>>> Now he has something to hold over *your* head for the rest of eternity or
>>until
>>> he loses interest, whichever comes first.
>>>
>>> What I want to know, though, is what seque...
Evidence muju51 5/29/01 7:40 PM
In article <3B1445BC...@cris.com>, dkomo says...>> wonderful calculator that led to his co...
Evidence Gyudon Z 5/29/01 9:05 PM
From newbie:

>>...

Evidence Nicholas Buenk 5/29/01 11:20 PM

"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:87k5htggbuvvu17hg1ku8qohe9m2u6969i@4ax.com...

> On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
> wrote:
>
> >Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> >before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> >the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
> >
> >Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> >non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
> >before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> >Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> >is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> >the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> >formation of the genetic code.
> >
> >If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> >code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would hav...
Evidence Nicholas Buenk 5/29/01 11:25 PM
Evidence Eros 5/30/01 12:40 AM

"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b12c62c.11126051@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> Submitted herewith:  Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in.  Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> non-spontaneous chemical reaction.  Positive free energy is required
> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> formation of the genetic code.
>
> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
> wonder.
>
> Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> the...
Evidence Karsten Knönagel 5/30/01 4:15 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> schrieb :

| Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
| is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
| the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
| formation of the genetic code.  
|
| If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
| code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
| wonder.
|
| Creationist:  Why would God create living organisms to operate under
| the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
| forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
| a loving God, as He claims to be.

It doesn't make a difference if "god" created entropy before or after
creation of the genetic code, does it? Or was your "god" not the creator
of the physical laws which determine the universe's behaviour.

Karsten

Evidence Greg 5/30/01 4:45 AM
"Nicholas Buenk" <Ni...@NonSPAMtig.com.au> wrote in message news:<em0R6.26820$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au>...

> "Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:87k5htggbuvvu17hg1ku8qohe9m2u6969i@4ax.com...
<SNIP> > >

> >
> > No, we don't agree.  There's been plenty of positive free energy
> > around since the Sun started shining.  All the energy involved comes
> > from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>
> But I also have a question, how is this energy used?  What is able to
> convert this energy into complexity?

Chemistry reactions?

Greg
Welcome to Hell.
Here's your accordian.

Evidence muju51 5/30/01 3:10 PM
In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>
>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>>>
>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>>>evolved instinct.
>>>
>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>
>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>
>well, creationists were never very strong ...
Evidence Gyudon Z 5/30/01 6:45 PM
From newbie:

>>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>>further demonstration of that fact.
>>
>>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life
>doe...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/30/01 8:10 PM
On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>humans have no instincts
>>humans have life
>>therefore you're disproven.
>>
>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:

and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
learn to follow the thread.

 "What I find most intriguing is
>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>instinct is central to survival.

no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
yet we've been around for about 150,000 yrs.

 Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct when
>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."

it didnt. again, instinct is not necessary to survival.

>>
>You evolutionist, you...lie all the ti...

Evidence muju51 5/30/01 8:30 PM
In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours.
>>Basic to
>>>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant
>>reproduce
>>>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How
>>did life
>>>>>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival
>>before it
>>>>>>evolved instinct.
>>>>>
>>>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>>>
>>>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not
>>with
>>>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>>>
>>>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>>>further demonstration of that fact.
>>>
>>>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
...
Evidence muju51 5/30/01 9:15 PM
In article <3b15b4b5...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>humans have no instincts
>>>humans have life
>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>
>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>
>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
>learn to follow the thread.
>
You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans evolved, right?
You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)

>
> "What I find most intriguing is
>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>>instinct is central to survival.
>
>no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
>yet we've been around for about 150,000 yrs.
>
You SERIOUSLY think the second sentence supports the first? And you still have
not shown that humans do not have instincts. You have shown NOTHING.

>
>> Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life ...
Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 12:05 AM
From ol' noobs:

>>>>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>>>>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life
>>>does not
>>>>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.

>>>>
>>>>humans have no instincts
>>>>humans have life
>>>>therefore you're dispro...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 1:10 AM
In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>>>You seem almost to deliberately allow arguments to go over your head.
>>>
>>>wf3h claimed that at least one group of living organisms on the planet does
>>not
>>>have instincts.
>>>
>>>You expressed unwillingness to logically counter his claim (I wonder
>>why...),
>>>but very strongly implied that it was incorrect.
>>>
>>>He indicated that humans do not have instincts.
>>>
>>>You seem to think that just because you did not...
Evidence crwydryn 5/31/01 1:40 AM
[piggybacking]

>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>

[enormous snip]

>>humans have no instincts


I have to disagree.  Humans do have instincts.  Human behaviour is not
strongly influenced by these instincts, but we do have instincts in any
reasonable definition of the word.  Or do you also claim that chimpanzees
don't have instincts?  How about other primates?

Yes, human behaviour is *primarily* learned, and these learned behaviours
frequently contradict the instincts we do have, but we are animals, and like
any other animal we have instincts.   I suppose it does depend on where you
draw the line between instinct and reflex, but still it seems clear that
there are human instincts.


Some behaviours that are sometimes cited as instinctive are certainly
reflexive:

- an infant's tendency for rooting (searching for the nipple)
- the tendency to attempt to grasp things that touch the palm
- the tendency to turn in the direction of the cheek touched

However, there are more complex behaviours that are also apparently
unlearned:

- the urge to seek out and socialise with other humans (this one's debatable
I suppose)
- self-grooming (certain grooming behaviours are learned, but there are many
that to my knowledge are not learned, and are human universals - it is
striking that many of these are shared with Chimpanzees)
- the *learning*of*language* - if this were not automatic humans would not
be more or less universally language using.
- sexual signalling by adolescents is AFAIK universal, and typically not
voluntary (downturned eyes, blushing, smiling, covert glances, urge to
touch, desire to gain the other's attention, etc); the degree to which the
response triggered by a given individual is suppressible varies according to
individual "attractedness"  of course, but this is the case for all mammals.
The only difference is the degree to which attrac...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:25 AM
On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:
snip>
>
>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>a "rock pusher".
>

that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
positive free energy.  

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
surface.  Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.


>>
>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>
>>
>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>on the table at the moment.
>
>Define "non-spontaneous".
>

any activity that requires more energy input in order to reverse the
normal direction of 2LoT.  Again, if I've stated that incorrectly, I'm
sure you'll redirect me.

>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>>>nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
>>>thermodynamics.
>>
>>my original position in t...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 14:41:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> On 28 May 2001 21:44:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>> >
>> >No.  There was plenty of energy transfer present
>> >to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
>> >biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
>> >activity (probably from some chemical activity
>> >too.).
>> >
>>
>> is that positive free energy, or just plain free energy?  Gibbs free
>> energy, maybe -- do I have to research that, too?  Okay, hang on....
>
>What is energy from the sun?  What is energy from
>geothermal activity? (and from chemical activity?)
>
>>
>> >You said something about "evidence"...?
>> >
>>
>> yes, evidence for positive free energy in the genetic coding system.
>
>Where's the evidence you claimed?  I saw word
>games with thermodynamics, I didn't see "evidence"
>to support your claim.
>

the evidence is right before your eyes, as evidenced by a genetic
coding system tha...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 13:11:32 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

snip>
>
>Point of clarification: Do you mean thermodynamically spontaneous or
>spontaneous as in frequently occurring in nature? You see, evolution does base
>itself on things that occur in nature, yes, but these things that occur in
>nature are often not thermodynamically spontaneous.
>

there are frequently occurring spontaneous and non-spontaneous
reactions in nature.  I'm interested in the thermodynamically
non-spontaneous.  T

>>then if the genetic
>>coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>>positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
>>if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>>free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?
>
>There are ways to thermodynamically couple energy to a system other than the
>ones currently in use by metabolism. If you have a solution of amino acids, you
>can evaporate the water and you'll get amino acid chains. You see, the removed
>water has payed the entropy tax for the chains to exist.
>

what happens if, after thewater evaporated, you left the amino acid
chains sitting out in the sunshine for a prolonged exposure?  Would
the extra energy pulsating down upon the chains cause them to organize
and develop and decrease entropy?

>Our metabolism still betrays what may be a remnant of this system. To bind
>amino acids together, you remove a hydrogen from one of them and a hydroxyl
>group from the other, which releases a water molecule as the two acids bind.
>

how did the amino acids, hydrophobic and hydrophilic, maintain their
formation in the primordial waters?

><snip>
>
>>>> Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>>> evolve in the face of entropy?
>
>>>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
>>>face of entropy".
>
>>yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past.  I'm talking
>>origins here, though.  
>
>And origins are not in the historical p...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?
>
>You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under


>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>a loving God, as He claims to be."
>
>This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
>Being.  

I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground.  I didn't mean it
to become the proverbial bull/red flag.

>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
>that's why I challenged you to present some.

okay.  Challenge accepted.  

The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
the existence of Jesus God.

> But, I'll accept your
>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>hundreds of times already.
>

is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?  Or
has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
how stable and centered such a person might be?

>> In light of how 2LoT wo...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:35 AM
On 29 May 2001 17:03:49 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>Nantko Schanssema wrote:
>>
>> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
>>
>> >positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>> >rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>> >this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>> >rock pusher, is it?
>>
>> The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>> vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>> falls back to earth as well.
>>
>
>Yep, and sometimes that water vapor comes back down to earth in a rush
>within a limited area, as in a mountain canyon with a creek flowing
>through it.  Then you get a flash flood which tends to push a *lot* of
>rocks around, and people too if they're unlucky enough to be there.
>See the Big Thompson Canyon disaster in Colorado or the Rapid City,
>S.D. flood.
>

more spontaneous reactions, imo.

--
zoe

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 9:00 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>a "rock pusher".

>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
>which the work is being done.

No it doesn't. A local decrease in energy can be created by a reaction endemic
to the system.

I don't know why you don't think this is possible. If the entire universe is
considered a system, how do you think we can get energy from the outside? The
universe does undergo localized entropy decreases, you know.

>I don't think that sunlight would
>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>positive free energy.  

But what if these chemicals *were* the system?

And the use of evaporation to decrease energy has been very well-documented.
It's called rock candy.

>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.

What do you think a suntan is?

Or photosynthesis?

>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.

Ah, there you are wrong. The ATP that reacts with the enzymes in order for them
to do their job is spontaneous. The reaction catalyzed by the enzyme, though,
is not.

And in photosynthesis the energy otherwise supplied by ATP is supplied by
photons.

Most college level biology texts devote a chapter to photosynthesis. Read well.

>>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
>>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>>on the table at the moment.

>>Define "non-spontaneous".

>any activity that requires more energy input in order to reverse the
>normal direction of 2LoT.

Any reaction that results in a net decrease of free energy, yes.

>Again, if I've stated that incorrectly, I'm
>sure you'll redirect me.

>>>>I'm not sure what you mean...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 9:15 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>>
>>> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?

>>You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>>a loving God, as He claims to be."

>>This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
>>Being.  

>I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
>one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
>but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
>their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
>evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground.  I didn't mean it
>to become the proverbial bull/red flag.

In other words, you were begging the question to those who routinely beg the
same question.

>>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
>>that's why I challenged you to present some.

>okay.  Challenge accepted.  

>The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>the existence of Jesus God.

Actually, that's mostly testimony for the existence of Jesus. For the existence
of the Divine Watchmaker itself, you'll need something empirical, since you
can't have any reliable witnesses.

>> But, I'll accept your
>>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>>creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
>>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>>hundreds of times already.

>is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?

Because they have no empirical evidence and most of them didn't have the
scientific background to properly analyze what they saw.

And they actually saw Jesus, not the Divine Watchmaker.

>Or
>has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
>of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
>how stable and centered such a person might be?

He wants empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is objective and does not hinge
on the reliability of a witness.

>>> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
>>> philosophical persuasion what...

Evidence Boikat 5/31/01 9:15 AM
> ...
Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 9:45 AM
From newbie:

>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From ol' noobs:
>>
>>>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>From newbie:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>>
<snip>

>>>>>>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>>>>>>further demonstration of that fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>>>>>>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>>>>>>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.

>>>>>>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life
>>>>>does not
>>>>>>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.

>>>>>>humans have no instincts
>>>>>>humans have life
>>>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>>>>You seem almost to deliberately allow arguments to go over your head.
>>>>
>>>>wf3h claimed that at least one group of living organisms on the planet
>does
>>>not
>>>>have instincts.
>>>>
>>>>You expressed unwillingness to logically counter his claim (I wonder
>>>why...),
>>>>but very strongly implied that it was incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>He indicated that humans do not have instincts.
>>>>
>>>>You seem to think that just because you did not mention humans seems to
>make
>>>>his point irrelevant.
>>
>>>And his point is the one under consideration here, right?
>>
>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve" instinct

>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved
>instinct."
>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that for
>>one species it is not.

>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon.
Because he was making an existentially negative claim, newbie.

>And even if he had demonstrated that
>humans
>have no instincts(which he has not),

Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
excellent evidence for his claim.

You see, the burden of providing evidence is on one who makes an existentially
positive claim. It is up to the hypothetical person who claims that humans do
have instincts in order to disprove wf3h's claim. As it stands, the conspicuous
lack of evidenced instincts in humans is quite well-supported.

>that does not mean that they did not
>have
>those instincts in the past.

Doesn't matter. They do not have instincts *now*; they are ali...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 9:55 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 13:11:32 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>snip>

>>Point of clarification: Do you mean thermodynamically spontaneous or
>>spontaneous as in frequently occurring in nature? You see, evolution does
>base
>>itself on things that occur in nature, yes, but these things that occur in
>>nature are often not thermodynamically spontaneous.

>there are frequently occurring spontaneous and non-spontaneous
>reactions in nature.  I'm interested in the thermodynamically
>non-spontaneous.

Okay.

>>>then if the genetic
>>>coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>>>positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
>>>if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>>>free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

>>There are ways to thermodynamically couple energy to a system other than the
>>ones currently in use by metabolism. If you have a solution of amino acids,
>you
>>can evaporate the water and you'll get amino acid chains. You see, the
>removed
>>water has payed the entropy tax for the chains to exist.

>what happens if, after thewater evaporated, you left the amino acid
>chains sitting out in the sunshine for a prolonged exposure?  Would
>the extra energy pulsating down upon the chains cause them to organize
>and develop and decrease entropy?

It actually wouldn't accomplish that much, but since life was in water for all
but the most recent tenth of its existence, I think we can say with some
confidence that the precursors to life were in a pool of water that had enough
water in it to pay the entropy tax.

>>Our metabolism still betrays what may be a remnant of this system. To bind
>>amino acids together, you remove a hydrogen from one of them and a hydroxyl
>>group from the other, which releases a water molecule as the two acids bind.

>how did the amino acids, hydrophobic and hydrophilic, maintain their
>formation in the primordial waters?

The same way they do now. Chemical bonds.

>><snip>
>>
>>>>> Evolutionist:  (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>>>> evolve in the face of entropy?
>>
>>>>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in
>the
>>>>face of entropy".
>>
>>>yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past.  I'm talking
>>>origins here, though.  
>>
>>And origins are not in the historical past?

>"historical" refers to documented, as in the timeline of history.
>Origins are not documented in our textbooks as historically observed.

But is it not an axiom of the scientific method that physical laws do not
change over time?

>>Anyway, a...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:55 AM
On 29 May 2001 13:51:33 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b139472.63939940@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>> rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>> rock pusher, is it?
>
>Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.
>
>1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
>proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction has a
>positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
>spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.
>
>2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
>macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis.

of course, without a ...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 10:55 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>of course, without a system in place, sunlight would not cause
>photosynthesis to occur in chemicals lying loosely about, would it?

Not photosynthesis in the modern sense, but photon absorption does kick
electrons into higher orbits, and it's very interesting to see what chemical
reactions are the result.

>>Then the cows eat
>>the plants,

>sounds non-spontaneo...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 10:55 AM
On 29 May 2001 11:42:17 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

>zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):


>
>>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>>rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>>rock pusher, is it?
>
>The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>falls back to earth as well.
>

I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.  

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 11:00 AM
On 29 May 2001 12:21:59 -0400, "Derek Stevenson"
<dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

snip>
>
>Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
>reproduction today?
>

for the same reason that you invoke your singularities -- it has
explanatory power.

snip>
>
>The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as the
>universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on earth
>is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.
>

you would notice that your conclusion was based upon a premise that
contains "as far as we can determine" within it.


>> > we know the SLOT was
>> >operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>> >on stars older than the earth).
>>
>> I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
>> of the universe?  Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
>> (as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?
>
>Neither. It means t...

Evidence Ken Cox 5/31/01 11:05 AM
zoe_althrop wrote:
> I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
> I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
> the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
> the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.

Osmosis and mitochondrial respiration are both spontaneous.
Eating is somewhat less so, but it's not exactly a chemical
reaction.

--
Ken Cox                  k...@research.bell-labs.com

Evidence Derek Stevenson 5/31/01 11:15 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15ad6d.47443331@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

[snip]

> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
> surface.

I should never be surprised by anything Zoe says, but somehow I always am.

"I don't think that chemical reactions within the body's cells are triggered
by sunlight striking the body surface."

This, from someone posting from Central Florida. In late May.

Zoe, you never cease to astonish.

Evidence Boikat 5/31/01 11:20 AM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2001 11:42:17 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
> wrote:
>
> >zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
> >
> >>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> >>rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> >>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
> >>rock pusher, is it?

Yes it is. Big time.

> >
> >The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
> >vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
> >falls back to earth as well.
> >
>
> I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.

It's not "spontaneous", unless you are using a
private definition of "spontaneous".

> I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
> the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
> the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.

What about them?

Boikat
>
...

Evidence Derek Stevenson 5/31/01 11:30 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15bce6.51404962@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 29 May 2001 12:21:59 -0400, "Derek Stevenson"
> <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> >Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
> >reproduction today?
>
> for the same reason that you invoke your singularities -- it has
> explanatory power.

What "singularities"?

In any case, it's not enough for a theory to have "explanatory power" -- it
must also be consistent with the evidence at hand. This is why the Big Bang,
evolution et al. are so widely accepted: they explain the observations and
the evidence.

You're doing the exact opposite with your invocation of "origins" as Things
Science Was Not Meant To Know -- you invoke it precisely because your
favoured explanation does *not* conform to the evidence.

> >The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as
the
> >universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on
earth
> >is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.
>
> you would notice that your conclusion was based upon a premise that
> contains "as far as we can determine" within it.

Well spotted. Yes, we assume that when something has been observed to be the
case in every situation we have examined, that it is reasonable to assume
that it is also the case in those situations which we have not yet examined.
We assume that the fundamental laws of the universe do not change simply
because we are not looking.

So do you. At least, I assume you do not go to the trouble of conducting a
rigorous series of tests to verify that your bedroom floor is a solid
surface capable of supporting your weight befor...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 1:00 PM
In article <20010531124046.14764.00004012@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>From ol' noobs:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>
>>>>>From newbie:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>>>
><snip>
>
>>>>>>>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>>>>>>>further demonstration of that fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>>>>>>>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>>>>>>>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>
>>>>>>>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life
>>>>>>does not
>>>>>>>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>
>>>>>>>humans have no instincts
>>>>>>>humans have life
>>>>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>>>...
Evidence Dave Horn 5/31/01 1:10 PM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:EnxR6.7481$rn5.349497@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <20010531124046.14764.00004012@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
says...

[Snip]

> >>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon.
>
> >Because he was making an existentially negative claim,
> >newbie.

Newbie must've been confused by the phrase "existentially negative."

> >>And even if he had demonstrated that humans
> >>have no instincts(which he has not),
>
> >Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct,
> >which is excellent evidence for his claim.
>
> unbelievable.

And why is this "unbelievable?"  Newbie doesn't say.  In typical Newbie
fashion, a text-byte is supposed to be sufficient.

Can Newbie support that humans have instincts?  Notice that he hasn't tried
throughout this thread.  Instead, his responses have been typically
Newbiesque - evasive, petulant and juvenile.

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 5/31/01 1:40 PM

Zoe, can you give a description of how you determine whether a given
chemical reaction is spontaneou...

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 5/31/01 1:45 PM
On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.  

*blink*

*blink blink*

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 3:35 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010531124046.14764.00004012@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From newbie:
>>
>>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>From ol' noobs:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From newbie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>>>>
<snip>

>>>>>>You expressed unwillingness to logically counter his claim (I wonder


>>>>>why...),
>>>>>>but very strongly implied that it was incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He indicated that humans do not have instincts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to think that just because you did not mention humans seems to
>>>make
>>>>>>his point irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>>And his point is the one under consideration here, right?
>>>>
>>>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve"
>instinct
>>>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved
>>>instinct...

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/31/01 3:50 PM
On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>a "rock pusher".
>>
>
>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>pushing as a change in free energy.

Then the sun is a rock pusher.  It increases free energy.

> It requires energy from an
>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy

You don't understand thermodynamics.  Entropy and free energy are not
the same.  Entropy is a measure of the amount of NON-free energy.

>in the system upon
>which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>positive free energy.

No, it would not decrease the entropy of that sort of system.  But it
would increase the free energy.

>
>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.

OK, you're wrong.   Vitamin D synthesis is triggered and powered by
sunlight.

>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.

I'll withhold comment until you define "spontaneous".  Your messages
make it clear the you are using it in some unusual sense.


>
>
>>>
>>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
>>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>>on the table at the moment.
>>
>>Define "non-spontaneous".

You forgot to answer this question.

>>
>
>any activity that requires more energy input in order to reverse the
>normal direct...

Evidence Jon Fleming 5/31/01 3:55 PM
On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

<snip>
>
>The testimony of reliable

You're going to have to justify your use of the word "reliable".  What
evidence do you have that these witnesses were reliable?  Did they
have any reasons for slanting their accounts, such as trying to
justify their choices, or trying to convince others of the correctness
of their choices?

>witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>the existence of Jesus God.
>
>> But, I'll accept your
>>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>>creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
>>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>>hundreds of times already.
>>
>
>is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?

Lawyers and law enforcement professionals know that _all_ testimony is
the very worst kind of evidence.  People are lousy witnesses.

>Or
>has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
>of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
>how stable and centered such a person might be?
>
>>> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
>>> philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
>>> arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?
>>>
>>
>>There's *no* possibility that it could happened any other way.  The
>>2Lot was already around at the moment the universe came into existence
>>in the Big ...

Evidence dkomo 5/31/01 3:55 PM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>

> I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
> one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
> but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
> their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
> evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground.  I didn't mean it
> to become the proverbial bull/red flag.
>
> >The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
> >evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
> >that's why I challenged you to present some.
>
> okay.  Challenge accepted.
>
> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
> the existence of Jesus God.
>

Creditable witnesses?  You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?  True
believers don't make very creditable witnesses because they have
hidden agendas.  These guys were trying to found a new religion.  They
cribbed off each other when they wrote their gospels.  They were in
serious theological conflict with the Judaism of that era.  It's
entirely probable they might have embellished their stories about
Christ.  Especially the parts about the miracles, and being the son of
God, and rising from the dead.

Are you going to believe whatever any putative prophet writes down
regarding religion?  How about Mohammed?  Why is he any less
creditable a witness than the four apostles when he claims to have
heard directly from Allah all the things that eventually were written
down in the Koran?  Or what about Do, the leader of the Heaven's Gate
cult that committed mass suicide, discarding their "containers" in the
belief that they would be taken aboard an alien spacecraft hiding
inside a comet?  Why aren't Do and his followers credible witnessess?
Did they not absolutely believe that they were an "away team" for an
alien supercivilization?

Alas, the history of religion and true believers of all kinds is
replete with examples of total nuttiness.  That's why citing writings
of these people is not any kind of reliable evidence.

>
> is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?  Or
> has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
> of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
> how stable and centered such a person might be?
>

That such a large proportion of humanity believes fervently in the
existence of omnipotent imaginary beings makes me a bit paranoid,
yes.  Religious belief has led to explosions of extreme repression and
violence many times in the past.
...

Evidence dkomo 5/31/01 4:15 PM
dkomo wrote:
>
>
> Thank the 2Lot that we're even here to talk about it.
>

Here's a slightly better quip:

   "The 2Lot. Not just a good idea. It's the LAW!"

(First saw this on a bumper sticker with the speed of light in place
of the 2Lot).


     --dk...@ris.com

Evidence leonardo dasso 5/31/01 5:25 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15aae9.46798594@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> of course, without a system in place, sunlight would not cause
> photosynthesis to occur in chemicals lying loosely about, would it?

I dont see what your point is. My reply was an illustration of how the sun
can drive a number of reactions. Of course, for photosynthesis to occur you
need a photosynthetic system. This is just one example, the energy from the
sun, like the energy from lightning can be captured by a high number of
chemicals.

> >Then the cows eat
> >the plants,
>
> sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.

Everything that happens is by definition thermodynamically spontaneous,
otherwise it would not happen. Therefore, the cows eating the plants is a
spontaneous process. Unless you want to argue that the cows are being forced
to eat the plants. That of course depends on the farmer. Some are rather
pushy and make their cows eat against their will.

> > synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
> >carbon sources in the plant.
>
> would you consider the movement of ions into a compartment against its
> concentration gradient to be spontaneous?

Depends of course on how you define your system. The pumping of protons out
of the mitochondria for instance is spontaneous if you define yo...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 5:42 PM
In article <20010531182920.15558.00004124@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010531124046.14764.00004012@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>From newbie:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>
>>>>>From ol' noobs:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>>says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>From newbie:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>>>>>
><snip>
>
>>>>>>>You expressed unwillingness to logically counter his claim (I wonder
>>>>>>why...),
>>>>>>>but very strongly implied that it was incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He indicated that humans do not have instincts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You seem to think that just because you did not mention humans seems to
>>>>make
>>>>>>>his point irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And his point is the one under consideration here, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "ev...
Evidence Nantko Schanssema 5/31/01 5:42 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>>zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

I'm confused by this response.

You equate "free energy" with the energy that is involved in pushing a
rock uphill. You seem to be of the opinion...

Evidence leonardo dasso 5/31/01 5:55 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15ad6d.47443331@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>

> wrote:
> snip>
> >
> >If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
> >positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
> >a "rock pusher".
> >
>
> that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
> pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
> outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon

> which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
> decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
> of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
> positive free energy.
>
> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
> surface.

You are wrong. Just 5 examples:
1. how do you get a suntan?
2. how do you make vitamin D?
3. How do you get skin cancer?
4. how do plants get energy from the sun?
5. How can you see?

>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
> order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
> systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
> sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.

You are mixing things here.
1. the enzymes make reactions happen faster. They dont make non-spontaneous
reactions become spontaneous.
2. What drives reactions in biological systems is energy, and the only
source of energy we have available is the energy from the sun.

> >>
> >>>All the energy involved comes
> >>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
> >>>
> >>
> >>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
> >>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
> >>on the table at the moment.
> >

[snip]

> >No, you have assumed (for what reason I don't know) that the code must
> >have been in place be...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 6:00 PM
On 29 May 2001 13:42:43 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

snip>

>ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
>mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
>"empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code.

that's my sloppy use of terms.  I should have said genetic coding
system.


> What needs energy in a
>living cell -in the form of ATP- is:  biosynthetic pathways, processes that
>involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.
>
>>They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.
>
>What are not "spontaneous mechanisms"?
>

oops, I snipped prematurely, and now have lost the train of thought.

>> Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions, then if the genetic


>> coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>> positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
>> if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>> free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?
>
>The sun, my friend. It has been shining on this earth for billions of years.
>

the sun only provides free energy, imo.  What happens to that free
energy, negative or positive, depends on spontaneous or
non-spontaneous actions; is ...

Evidence leonardo dasso 5/31/01 6:00 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15b371.48983017@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>

[snip]


>
> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
> the existence of Jesus God.

Who is this "Jesus God"? I went 12 years to a catholic school and this is
the first mention of this person I have heard. And who are these reliable
witnesses over 2000  years that have met this Jesus God?

> > But, I'll accept your
> >explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
> >creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
> >challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
> >hundreds of times already.
> >
>
> is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?  Or
> has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
> of God,  you respond wi...

Evidence Thomas Griffin 5/31/01 6:35 PM

zoe_althrop wrote:

> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>
> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
> the existence of Jesus God.
>
> > But, I'll accept your
> >explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
> >creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
> >challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
> >hundreds of times already.
> >
>
> is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?  Or
> has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
> of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
> how stable and centered such a person might be?
>

There are very good reasons to doubt the reliability of witness. Firstly, we
have no reason to think these people are not lying.
We know for a fact that people lie. We do not know that God exists. Therefore
if a person claims that they experienced "Jesus God", it is far more likely
that they are lying than that god caused the experience. Secondly, even if we
assume that these people are acurately reporting their recollection of the
experience there is mountains of experimental scientific evidence showing the
lack of reliability of eyewitteness testimony. People are very poor at
accurately reporting even everyday mundane events that they are familiar
with. We also know that emotions, prior beliefs, physiological illness,
fatigue, lack of nourishment can greatly effect perception and cause
hallucination. Lastly, as you said, these testimonies have been "passed from
one trustworthy person to another", and we certainly know that information is
lost, added, and distorted when it depends upon the recall ability and verbal
ability of those involved in the transmission of that info.
So, just for starters we have four independent explanations that can account
for the so called evidence of God:

1. Deciet
2. Distorted perception
3. Faulty recollection of the "witness"
4. Gradual distortion over time due to due highly fallible transmission.

All four have massive evidence showing that they due occur, and all four can
independently acco...

Evidence John Pieper 5/31/01 7:50 PM

>energy, negative or positive, depends o...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:05 PM
On 31 May 2001 14:03:17 -0400, Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>> I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
>> I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
>> the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
>> the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.
>
>Osmosis

chemiosmosis does not seem to follow the rules of normal osmosis, from
what I'm reading.  The process is described as ions being moved into a
compartment of the mitochondria (or chloroplast), creating a
concentration gradient between two compartments.  Normally, ions would
tend to diffuse out from more crowded to less crowded until
equilibrium is established (I think -- correct me if I'm wrong).  Yet
instead of this happening, we find hydrogen atoms being pumped into
one of the two compartments of the mitochondria (or chloroplast),
against their concentration gradients.  This requires energy -- the
type of po...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:25 PM
On 31 May 2001 16:39:06 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

snip>


>
>Zoe, can you give a description of how you determine whether a given
>chemical reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous?  Don't give us
>an example, just tell us how we can make that determination ourselves.
>

is this the Gibbs Free Energy equation?  DeltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS.
Translating (stay put, beret), Gibbs is the man who theorized about
the potential energy of a chemical reaction of a substance or system.
DeltaG is the change in GFE, and that change is equal to the change in
enthalpy (deltaH) minus the product of the temperature and the change
in entropy (deltaS).

Or, put more simply:  deltaG represents the energy available for doing
work; deltaH is the total energy available, and temperature times
change in entropy is the energy not available for doing work.  

Therefore, when change in free energy is negative, I would call that
reaction spontaneous.  When the change in fre...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:30 PM
On 31 May 2001 20:40:08 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

snip>


>>>The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>>>vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>>>falls back to earth as well.
>
>>I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
>>I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
>>the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
>>the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.  
>
>I'm confused by this response.
>
>You equate "free energy" with the energy that is involved in pushing a
>rock uphill.

no, I equated POSITIVE free energy as the energy involved in pushing a
rock uphill.

> You seem to be of the opinion that the sun does not
>provide such energy. I generalise your idea of "free energy" as the
>energy that is involved in pushing mass against gravity. (BTW, in
>physical parlance this is transformation to potential en...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 8:45 PM
On 31 May 2001 13:51:29 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

>From Zoe Althrop:
>
>>On 29 May 2001 13:51:33 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>


>>>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3b139472.63939940@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>>>> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>>>> rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>>>> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>>>> rock pusher, is it?
>>>
>>>Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.
>>>
>>>1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
>>>proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction has a
>>>positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
>>>spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.
>>>
>>>2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
>>>macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis.
>>
>>of course, without a system in place, sunlight would not cause
>>photosynthesis to occur in chemicals lying loosely about, would it?
>
>Not photosynthesis in the modern sense, but photon absorption does kick
>electrons into higher orbits, and it's very interesting to see what chemical
>reactions are the result.
>

electrons being kicked up a notch, how do you scientists view this
activity, as an increase or decrease in entropy?

>>>Then the cows eat
>>>the plants,
>
>>sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.
>
>What part of cows eating plants has a positive deltaG? And you will have to
>support this with math, I'm afraid.
>

I can't support that with math, I'm afraid -- unless I go read some
more -- and guess what, I'm no...

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 5/31/01 8:50 PM
On 31 May 2001 23:21:03 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 31 May 2001 16:39:06 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:

>>Zoe, can you give a description of how you determine whether a given
>>chemical reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous?  Don't give us
>>an example, just tell us how we can make that determination ourselves.

>is this the Gibbs Free Energy equation?  

I don't know.  You are supposed to be telling me, it is your theory.

>DeltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS.
>Translating (stay put, beret), Gibbs is the man who theorized about
>the potential energy of a chemical reaction of a substance or system.
>DeltaG is the change in GFE, and that change is equal to the change in
>enthalpy (deltaH) minus the product of the temperature and the change
>in entropy (deltaS).
>
>Or, put more simply:  deltaG represents the energy available for doing
>work; deltaH is the total energy available, and temperature times
>change in entropy is the ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:00 PM
On 31 May 2001 20:23:15 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

and it is this system that I'm talking about -- is it reasonable to
think that a system that requires a decrease in entropy in order to
form, will do so just as a result of spontaneous chemical reactions?

>This is just one example, the energy from the
>sun, like the energy from lightning can be captured by a high number of
>chemicals.
>
>> >Then the cows eat
>> >the plants,
>>
>> sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.
>
>Everything that happens is by definition thermodynamically spontaneous,
>otherwise it would not happen. Therefore, the cows eating the plants is a
>spontaneous process. Unless you want to argue that the cows are being forced
>to eat the plants. That of course depends on the farmer. Some are rather
>pushy and make their cows eat against their will.
>

lol.  However, it sounds as if you're saying that there is really no
such thing as non-spontaneous reactions.  What happened to the
reversal of the effects of the 2LoT?

>> > synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
>> >carbon sources in the plant.
>>
>> would you consider the movement of ions into a compartment against its
>> concentration gradient to be spontaneous?
>
>Depends of course on how you define your system. The pumping of protons out
>of the mitochondria for instance is spontaneous if you define your system
>including the whole mitochondria, ie with th...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:10 PM
On 31 May 2001 11:59:41 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

>From Zoe Althrop:
>
>>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>>wrote:


>>snip>
>>>
>>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>>a "rock pusher".
>
>>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>>pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
>>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
>>which the work is being done.
>
>No it doesn't. A local decrease in energy can be created by a reaction endemic
>to the system.
>

and what is the source of decreased energy that formed the system in
which the reaction takes place?

>I don't know why you don't think this is possible. If the entire universe is
>considered a system, how do you think we can get energy from the outside? The
>universe does undergo localized entropy decreases, you know.
>

the universe, or our Earth?

>>I don't think that sunlight would
>>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>>positive free energy.  
>
>But what if these chemicals *were* the system?
>

they're not.

>And the use of evaporation to decrease energy has been very well-documented.
>It's called rock candy.
>

does your rock candy perform various functions of growth and
development?

>>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>>surface.
>
>What do you think a suntan is?
>

my sloppyspeak is in the way again.  Of course there are reactions to
sunlight striking the body.  I was referring to the fact that you do
not need sunlight striking the body in order for the reproductive
system to carry on.

>Or photosynthesis?
>

same answer.

>>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>>sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.
>
>Ah, there you are wrong. The ATP that reacts with the enzymes in order for them
>to do their job is spontaneous. The reaction catalyzed by the enzyme, though,
>is not.
>
>And in photosynthesis the energy otherwise supplied by ATP is supplied by
>photons.
>

the spontaneous actions you describe here occur AFTER non-spontaneous
reactions take place, right?

>Most college level biology texts devote a chapter to photosynthesis. Read well.


>
>>>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here.  The absorption
>>>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>>>on the tabl...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:10 PM
On 31 May 2001 16:40:17 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>>surface.  
>
>*blink*
>
>*blink blink*
>

right back at you, Mr. VandeWettering.

--
zoe

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:10 PM
On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>a "rock pusher".
>>
>
>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
>which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would

>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>positive free energy.  
>
>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.  Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES i...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:15 PM
On 30 May 2001 23:25:20 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>
>>You seem to think that just because you did not mention humans seems to make
>>his point irrelevant.
>>
>And his point is the one under consideration here, right?
>>
>How about whether his "point" invalidates my "point", as he says.
>>
>Quoting wf3h:
>>
>"humans have no instincts
>humans have life
>therefore you're disproven."
>>
>And this is supposed to "disprove" this: "What I find most intriguing is
>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>instinct is central to survival.

since humans have no instincts, and are alive, your point is?

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:15 PM
On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>>
>>> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?
>>
>>You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>the degenerative influences of entropy?  Why would He create life
>>forms that follow a path to death?  This does not make sense if He is
>>a loving God, as He claims to be."
>>
>>This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
>>Being.  


>
>I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
>one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
>but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
>their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
>evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground.  I didn't mean it
>to become the proverbial bull/red flag.
>
>>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
>>that's why I challenged you to present some.
>
>okay.  Challenge accepted.  
>
>The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>the existence of Jesus God.

of course moslems say that about their religion...buddhists about
theirs...hindus about theirs...

if reliable witnesses are...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:20 PM
On 31 May 2001 18:49:01 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>
>>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>snip>
>>>
>>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>>a "rock pusher".
>>>
>>
>>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>>pushing as a change in free energy.
>
>Then the sun is a rock pusher.  It increases free energy.
>

I meant a change in the positive direction.

>> It requires energy from an
>>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy
>
>You don't understand thermodynamics.  Entropy and free energy are not
>the same.  Entropy is a measure of the amount of NON-free energy.
>

okay, I accept that.

>>in the system upon
>>which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
>>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>>positive free energy.
>
>No, it would not decrease the entropy of that sort of system.  But it
>would increase the free energy.
>

is my sloppyspeak in the way again?

>>
>>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>>surface.
>
>OK, you're wrong.   Vitamin D synthesis is triggered and powered by
>sunlight.
>

I meant reactions in the reproductive system, actually.

>>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>>sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.
>
>I'll withhold comment until you define "spontaneous".  Your messages
>make it clear the you are using it in some unusual sense.

"spontaneous" refers to those reactions that occur without the aid of
positive free energy.  Is there a better way to express that?


>>
>>
>>>>...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:20 PM
On 31 May 2001 04:09:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>
>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve" instinct
>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that for >one species it is not.
>>
>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated that humans
>have no instincts(which he has not),

then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
wait.

 that does not mean that they did not have
>those instincts in the past.

and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
pleading'. you HOPE its true so you assert it is.

If you wish to claim that human ancestors did not
>have instincts, go for it.

we dont have them today. thats proof enough. if instincts are
necessary for survival, since we dont have ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:20 PM
On 31 May 2001 20:55:03 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>


>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b15ad6d.47443331@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>> snip>
>> >
>> >If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>> >positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>> >a "rock pusher".
>> >
>>
>> that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>> pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
>> outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
>> which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
>> decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>> of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>> positive free energy.
>>
>> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>> surface.
>
>You are wrong. Just 5 examples:
>1. how do you get a suntan?
>2...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:20 PM
On 31 May 2001 20:35:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <20010531182920.15558.00004124@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>
>>What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my claim is
>>unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.
>>
>Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the fallacy of
>your claim. Here is the standard evolutionist response: Just because you don't
>"see" something means nothing. We couldn't care less about what you "see" or
>think. You show a total lack of understanding of what evidence is with this
>statement: "I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
>excellent evidence for his claim."

and you assert instinct is NECESSARY for life. when shown this is
wrong, you say 'unbelievable', as if that proves something.

all you had to do was produce an instinct in humans. go ahead. name
one. what instinct do humans have?

>

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 5/31/01 9:20 PM

Perhaps you could explain how you think sun tanning occurs?

Or the manufacture of vitamin D?

>--
>zoe

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:25 PM
On 31 May 2001 00:10:13 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b15b4b5...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>>>
>>>>
>>>>humans have no instincts
>>>>humans have life
>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>>
>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>>
>>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
>>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
>>learn to follow the thread.
>>
>You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans evolved, right?
>You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)

we are still evolving. if you think instincts are necessary for
evolution, we should be dying, not evolving.

>>
>> "What I find most intriguing is
>>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>>>instinct is central to survival.
>>
>>no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
>>yet we've been around for about 150,000 ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:25 PM
On 31 May 2001 04:35:14 -0400, "crwydryn" <ke...@remove.canada.com>
wrote:

>[piggybacking]


>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>
>[enormous snip]
>
>>>humans have no instincts
>
>
>I have to disagree.  Humans do have instincts.  Human behaviour is not
>strongly influenced by these instincts, but we do have instincts in any
>reasonable definition of the word.  Or do you also claim that chimpanzees
>don't have instincts?  How about other primates?

and this instinct is?
>
>Yes, human behaviour is *primarily* learned, and these learned behaviours
>frequently contradict the instincts we do have,

how does learning conflict with instinct? again...what instincts do we
have? all you have to do is name one.

 but we are animals, and like
>any other animal we have instincts.   I suppose it does depend on where you
>draw the line between instinct and reflex, but still it seems clear that
>there are human instincts.

no, it doesnt at all. there is a ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:30 PM
On 31 May 2001 12:13:41 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

snip>


>
>>>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>>>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
>>>that's why I challenged you to present some.
>
>>okay.  Challenge accepted.  
>
>>The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>>the existence of Jesus God.
>
>Actually, that's mostly testimony for the existence of Jesus. For the existence
>of the Divine Watchmaker itself,

Jesus and the Divine Watchmaker are one and the same.

>you'll need something empirical, since you
>can't have any reliable witnesses.
>

what is your standard for reliability in a witness?

>>> But, I'll accept your
>>>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>>>creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
>>>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>>>hundreds of times already.
>
>>is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?
>
>Because they have no empirical evidence and most of them didn't have the
>scientific background to properly analyze what they saw.
>

you'd never get past voir dire in a jury selection.  Your prejudice is
too great.  

Witnesses are not supposed to be scientific.  They simply report what
th...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 9:30 PM
On 31 May 2001 13:56:35 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 29 May 2001 12:21:59 -0400, "Derek Stevenson"
><dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
>>reproduction today?
>>
>
>for the same reason that you invoke your singularities -- it has
>explanatory power.

we can see singularities. they are called 'black holes' and have been
observed. we have never seen a magical decoupling of the 1st and 2nd
laws of thermo.

in fact, we KNOW this didnt happen because the universe wouldnt be
here.

>
>snip>
>>
>>The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as the
>>universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on earth
>>is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.
>>
>
>you would notice that your conclusion was based upon a premise that
>contains "as far as we can determine" within it.

gee..aint it wonderful what observation can do. and your observation
that the 2nd law didnt apply since we can observe that it DID?

more handwaving.

>
>
>>> > we know the SLOT was
>>> >operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>>> >on stars older than the earth).
>>>
>>>...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:35 PM
On 31 May 2001 18:53:12 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>


><snip>
>>
>>The testimony of reliable
>
>You're going to have to justify your use of the word "reliable".  

when a witness is reliable, his story gets believed and passed on to
other reliable witnesses.  The fact that the story of Jesus is still
with us is evidence of the reliability of the first witnesses.  Do you
see any followers of Zeus around today, or followers of any of the
other false gods of literature?  

>What
>evidence do you have that these witnesses were reliable?  Did they
>have any reasons for slanting their accounts, such as trying to
>justify their choices, or trying to convince others of the correctness
>of their choices?
>

why would they want to do this?  You're projecting, I think.

>>witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>>the e...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:40 PM
On 31 May 2001 18:53:26 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
>> one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
>> but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
>> their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
>> evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground.  I didn't mean it
>> to become the proverbial bull/red flag.
>>
>> >The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>> >evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
>> >that's why I challenged you to present some.
>>
>> okay.  Challenge accepted.
>>
>> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one

>> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>> the existence of Jesus God.
>>
>
>Creditable witnesses?  You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?  True
>believers don't make very creditable witnesses because they have
>hidden agendas.  These guys were trying to found a new religion.

these guys were in no position to want to found a new religion.  They
lived in a time when they were hunted and persecuted for their
allegiance to Christ.  They were unpopular, fed to lions for the
entertainment of the Romans, hiding in caves to avoid being killed.
Do you really think they would try to found a new religion in the face
of such hostility -- unless they were truly driven by a very real
passion and  truth -- they had met God face to face and lived to tell
about it.

>  They
>cribbed off each other when they wrote their gospels.  They were in
>serious theological conflict with the Judaism of that era.  It's
>entirely probable they might have embellished their stories about
>Christ.  Especially the parts about the miracles, and being the son of
>God, and rising from the dead.
>

you're guessing here -- and uncharitably so, too.  Your doubt and
distrust of truth is killing you.

>Are you going to believe whatever any putative prophet writes down
>regarding religion?  How about Mohammed?  Why is he any less
>creditable a witness than the four apostles when he claims to have
>heard directly from Allah all the things that eventually were written
>down in the Koran?  Or what about Do, the leader of the Heaven's Gate
>cult that committed m...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:50 PM
On 31 May 2001 20:59:41 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>snip>


>Who is this "Jesus God"? I went 12 years to a catholic school and this is
>the first mention of this person I have heard.

are you serious?  They don't talk about Jesus God in catholic schools?

Jesus God is the human manifestation of the one true God of the
universe.  He broke through human history in order to reveal Himself
to us.

> And who are these reliable
>witnesses over 2000  years that have met this Jesus God?
>

the widely varied people who put down their experience with God in
writing, and over thousands of years.  Down at this end of our time,
we have gathered all these various writings together, examined them
and bound them into a single volume called the Bible.  As a result of
such a thorough search for any mention of the one true God, there is
no longer any "extra-Biblical" evidence to be found to add to the
compilation.

>> > But, I'll accept your
>> >explanation that you were merely adoptin...

Evidence zoe_althrop 5/31/01 9:50 PM
On 31 May 2001 21:34:21 -0400, Thomas Griffin <tgri...@uic.edu>
wrote:

>
>
>zoe_althrop wrote:
>
>> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
>> >zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>
>> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>> the existence of Jesus God.
>>
>> > But, I'll accept your
>> >explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>> >creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
>> >challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>> >hundreds of times already.
>> >
>>
>> is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?  Or
>> has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
>> of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
>> how stable and centered such a person might be?
>>
>
>There are very good reasons to doubt the reliability of witness. Firstly, we
>have no reason to think these people are not lying.
>We know for a fact that people lie. We do not know that God exists. Therefore
>if a person claims that they experienced "Jesus God", it is far more likely
>that they are lying than that god caused the experience. Secondly, even if we
>assume that these people are acurately reporting their recollecti...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 10:10 PM
In article <3b17169f...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 31 May 2001 04:09:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>
>>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve" instinct
>>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that for >one species it is not.
>>>
>>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated that humans
>>have no instincts(which he has not),
>
>then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
>wait.
>
Why don't you tell us why you think humans do not have instincts. This would
include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we are
animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.

>
> that does not mean that they did not have
>>those instincts in the past.
>
>and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
>pleading'. you HOPE its true so you assert it is.
>
No, this is called "evolution". How do you know we had ancestors that were
related to apes? Is this special pleading? Besides, I did not *say* humans had
instincts in the past; I said that even assuming that humans do not now have
instincts that does not mean they did not have th...
Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 10:15 PM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 31 May 2001 12:13:41 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>>>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>>>>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity.  And
>>>>that's why I challenged you to present some.
>>
>>>okay.  Challenge accepted.  
>>
>>>The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>>>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>>>the existence of Jesus God.
>>
>>Actually, that's mostly testimony for the existence of Jesus. For the
>existence
>>of the Divine Watchmaker itself,
>
>Jesus and the Divine Watchmaker are one and the same.

Not according to most of the trinitiarians I've met.

>>you'll need something empirical, since you
>>can't have any reliable witnesses.

>what is your standard for reliability in a witness?

Knowing enough to be discerning about what he saw, and not begging questions
all over the place.

>>>> But, I'll accept your
>>>>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>>>>creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
>>>>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>>>>hundreds of times already.

>>>is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?

>>Because they have no empirical evidence and most of them didn't have the
>>scientific background to properly analyze what they saw.

>you'd never get past voir dire in a jury selection.  Your prejudice is
>too great.  

If you mean that I am prejudiced towards using science when dealing with
scientific matters, I really don't see what the problem is.

>Witnesses are not supposed to be scientific.  They simply report what
>they have seen.
>
>>And they actually saw Jesus, not the Divine Watchmaker.

>Jesus is the same as the Divine Watchmaker.

When the last tim...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 10:15 PM
In article <3b171773...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 31 May 2001 20:35:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <20010531182920.15558.00004124@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>
>>>What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my claim is
>>>unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.
>>>
>>Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the fallacy of
>>your claim. Here is the standard evolutionist response: Just because you don't
>>"see" something means nothing. We couldn't care less about what you "see" or
>>think. You show a total lack of understanding of what evidence is with this
>>statement: "I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
>>excellent evidence for his claim."
>
>and you assert instinct is NECESSARY for life. when shown this is
>wrong, you say 'unbelievable', as if that proves something.
>
I am well aware of the curious nature of wha...
Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 10:25 PM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 31 May 2001 11:59:41 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>>From Zoe Althrop:
>>
>>>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>snip>
>>>>
>>>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>>>a "rock pusher".
>>
>>>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>>>pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
>>>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
>>>which the work is being done.

>>No it doesn't. A local decrease in energy can be created by a reaction
>endemic
>>to the system.

>and what is the source of decreased energy that formed the system in
>which the reaction takes place?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

>>I don't know why you don't think this is possible. If the entire universe is
>>considered a system, how do you think we can get energy from the outside?
>The
>>universe does undergo localized entropy decreases, you know.

>the universe, or our Earth?

The universe, of which our earth is a part.

>>>I don't think that sunlight would
>>>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>>>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>>>positive free energy.  

>>But what if these chemicals *were* the system?

>they're not.

Why not?

>>And the use of evaporation to decrease energy has been very well-documented.
>>It's called rock candy.

>does your rock candy perform various functions of growth and
>development?

No. Do amino acid chains?

(Hint: yes, they do).

>>>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>>>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>>>surface.

>>What do you think a suntan is?

>my sloppyspeak is in the way again.  Of course there are reactions to
>sunlight striking the body.  I was referring to the fact that you do
>not need sunlight striking the body in order for the reproductive
>system to carry on.

Why single out the reproductive system in this way?

>>Or photosynthesis?

>same answer.

Plants do need photosynthesis to reproduce, in the sense that you can't
reproduce if you're not alive.

>>>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>>>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>>>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>>>sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.

>>Ah, there you are wrong. The ATP that reacts with the enzymes in order for
>them
>>to do their job is spontaneous. The reaction catalyzed by the enzyme,
>though,
>>is not.

>>And in photosynthesis the energy otherwise supplied by ATP is supplied by
>>photons.


>the spontaneous actions you describe here occur AFTER non-spontaneous
>reactions take place, right?

Nope, at the same time.

<snip>

>>>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>>>>...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 10:35 PM
From Zoe Althrop:

Neither. Kicking an electron into a higher orbit is a completely reversible
reaction and is, I think, entropically neutral.

However, it does result in a decrease of free energy, which from a chemical
perspective is what makes reactions spontaneous or not.

From a physics perspective, it generated potential energy in the amount of the
photon absorbed, and it is this potential energy that is being used.

Either way (actually, they're the same way), thermionic coupling occurs and the
second law is satisfied.

>>>>Then the cows eat
>>>>the plants,
>>
>>>sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.

>>What part of cows eating plants has a positive deltaG? And you will have to
>>support this with math, I'm afraid.

>I can't support that with math, I'm afraid -- unless I go read some
>more -- and guess what, I'm not up to it at 11:35 p.m. -- how do all
>you tireless minds on T.O. do it?

I see no reason why we should make your arguments for you.

>>>>...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 10:35 PM
In article <3b1717b0...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 31 May 2001 00:10:13 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b15b4b5...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>humans have no instincts
>>>>>humans have life
>>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>>>
>>>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
>>>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
>>>learn to follow the thread.
>>>
>>You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans evolved, right?
>>You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)
>
>we are still evolving. if you think instincts are necessary for
>evolution, we should be dying, not evolving.
>
I wouldnt imagine you considering the differences in selection pressures in
humans being any different that apes, so I am not surprised you answer this way.
One little problem. If you think we are evolving and not dying, then show me
some evolution. The show is not over on this very recent evolutionary animal
called man as to whether he will survive or not. Evolution *is* change OVER
TIME.

>
>>>
>>> "What I find most intriguing is
>>>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>>>>instinct is central to survival.
>>>
>>>no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
>>>yet we've been around for about 150,000 yrs.
>>>
>>You SERIOUSLY think the second sentence supports the first? And you still have
>>not shown that humans do not have instincts. You have shown NOTHING....
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 10:35 PM
On 31 May 2001 23:59:51 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 20:23:15 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Depends of course on how you define your system. The pumping of protons out
>>of the mitochondria for instance is spontaneous if you define your system
>>including the whole mitochondria, ie with the respiratory chain included,
>>because the oxidation of the electron carriers supplies more than enough
>>energy to drive the protons out. On the other hand if you define your system
>>leaving the respiratory chain out, then it would not be spontaneous. But
>>when you include exergonic and endergonic reactions in the system of course
>>the result has to be exergonic, ie, spontaneous, otherwise it would not
>>happen. Everything that happens is spontaneous by definition.
>>
>
>and it is this very type of reasoning upon which macroevolution rests.
>Rationalize to the point where laws like 2LoT are done away with in
>order to hang onto a cherished belief.

ridiculously incompetent as usual for zoe.

the organism takes in energy...food. it uses this to drive the
chemical reactions in its body. zoe ignores the sun, and ignores food
in her attempt to bring magic into science.

.. These carbohydrates, fat and proteins have been synthesized
>>directly or indirectly thanks to the energy of the sun. So, there you have
>>it, eating cows depe...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 10:40 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:27:17 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 12:13:41 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>It's actually one of the axia of the scientific method: that physical laws
>>operate identically at every point in space-time.
>>
>
>yet you claim singularities in your worldview, don't you?

zoe is so incompetent in science its amazing she knows how to use a
computer

singularities...black holes...have been observed. zoe ignores the sun,
ignores food, and ignores observations to prove her view that science
needs magic.

Evidence wilkins 5/31/01 10:40 PM
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote:

> On 1 Jun 2001 00:09:30 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 31 May 2001 16:40:17 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
> >VandeWettering) wrote:
> >
> >>On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
> >>>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
> >>>surface.  
> >>
> >>*blink*
> >>
> >>*blink blink*
> >>
> >
> >right back at you, Mr. VandeWettering.
>
> Perhaps you could explain how you think sun tanning occurs?
>
> Or the manufacture of vitamin D?

Oh, I thought the blinking was caused by the chemical reactions cause by
sunlight on the rhodopsin in your retina...

--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.us...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 10:40 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:30:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 18:53:12 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>The testimony of reliable
>>
>>You're going to have to justify your use of the word "reliable".  
>
>when a witness is reliable, his story gets believed and passed on to
>other reliable witnesses.  The fact that the story of Jesus is still
>with us is evidence of the reliability of the first witnesses.  Do you
>see any followers of Zeus around today, or followers of any of the
>other false gods of literature?  

we see followers of moses who dont accept jesus. we see followers of
mohammed who 'saw' him...and who dont accept jesus.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 10:45 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:39:54 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 18:53:26 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>Creditable witnesses?  You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?  True
>>believers don't make very creditable witnesses because they have
>>hidden agendas.  These guys were trying to found a new religion.
>
>these guys were in no position to want to found a new religion.  They
>lived in a time when they were hunted and persecuted for their
>allegiance to Christ.  They were unpopular, fed to lions for the
>entertainment of the Romans, hiding in caves to avoid being killed.
>Do you really think they would try to found a new religion in the face
>of such hostility -- unless they were truly driven by a very real
>passion and  truth -- they had met God face to face and lived to tell
>about it.
>
martyrs exist in every religion...including fascism and communism. the
existence of martyrs is not proof of a religion's truth. it is simply
proof that people believe it.

>>  They
>>cribbed off each other when they wrote their gospels.  They were in
>>serious theological conflict wi...

Evidence Gyudon Z 5/31/01 10:45 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010531182920.15558.00004124@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From newbie:
>>
>>>In article <20010531124046.14764.00004012@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>From newbie:

>>>>
>>>>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From ol' noobs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>>>says...

>><snip>

>>>>>And even if he had demonstrated that
>>>>>humans
>>>>>have no instincts(which he has not),

>>>>Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is


>>>>excellent evidence for his claim.

>>>unbelievable.

>>What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my claim
>is
>>unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.

>Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the fallacy of
>your claim.

I claim that no observations of something are reasonably good evidence for the
nonexi...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 10:45 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 01:12:36 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b171773...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>
>>
>>and you assert instinct is NECESSARY for life. when shown this is
>>wrong, you say 'unbelievable', as if that proves something.
>>
>I am well aware of the curious nature of what you consider "shown". You consider
>yourself right without providing evidence. You simply are making a claim (as I
>am) that you have shown me wrong. You have not. And what I "proved" is that
>Gyudon and yourself do not understand what evidence is, because it is not as you
>and he think that evidence is personal testimony.

i see. and you said instinct is necessary for life. all you have to do
is prove it. go ahead. what instincts do humans have. you still havent
named one. thats all you have to do. name one.

>>
>>all you had to do was produce an instinct in humans. go ahead. name
>>one. what instinct do humans have?
>>
>From Encarta on the web: "Instinct, in...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 5/31/01 10:50 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 01:06:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b17169f...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 31 May 2001 04:09:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve" instinct
>>>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>>>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that for >one species it is not.
>>>>
>>>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated that humans
>>>have no instincts(which he has not),
>>
>>then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
>>wait.
>>
>Why don't you tell us why you think humans do not have instincts

i dont have to. you made a statement: instincts are necessary for
survival. i say prove it. name an instinct humans have. its not up to
me to disprove your statement. if i say you're a child molester, its
up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

.. This would


>include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we are
>animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.

uh...we have 2 legs. we are animals. by your logic, all animals have 2
legs. go tell your dog.

>>
>> that does not mean that they did not have
>>>those instincts in the past.
>>
>>and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
>>pleading'. you HOPE its true so you assert it is.
>>
>No, this is called "evolution".

again...prove it. prove humans had instincts in the past they lost.

How do you know we had ancestors that were
>related to apes? Is this special pleading?

thats what the fossils show. morphology...

 Besides, I did not *say* humans had
>instincts in the past; I said that even assuming that humans do not now have
>instincts that does not mean they did n...

Evidence newbie 5/31/01 11:15 PM
In article <20010601014101.11939.00000512@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...>nonexistence of something. I assert that there are no little blue goblins
>living in my teapot because I've never seen one.
>
Absense of *personal knowledge*(eviden...
Evidence Don Cates 5/31/01 11:25 PM
On 31 May 2001 20:57:35 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

[big snip]
>
>I really don't think the sun can be called positive free energy.  If
>it were, you would find all sorts of systems springing into action all
>around us, especially in the sunnier parts of the world.  Instead, the
>sun beats down upon us, and no new systems organize themselves out of
>the ground.

Weather - We just had a nice thunderstorm here.

>>snip>
>
>>
>>It is not a matter of whether you should or should not call them biological
>>or not. Plants ARE biological organisms. They use ATP like us, and they have
>>many common metabolic pathways with us.
>>
>
>and these common metabolic pathways give evidence of a decrease in
>entropy.

I think of it as *all* chemical reactions are spontaneous. It's just
that there are often specific conditions under which they are
spontaneous. Many of the reactions involved in life are not
spontaneous when looked at in isolation, but are spontaneous in the
pres...

Evidence muju51 5/31/01 11:25 PM
In article <3b172b05...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 01:12:36 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b171773...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>and you assert instinct is NECESSARY for life. when shown this is
>>>wrong, you say 'unbelievable', as if that proves something.
>>>
>>I am well aware of the curious nature of what you consider "shown". You consider
>>yourself right without providing evidence. You simply are making a claim (as I
>>am) that you have shown me wrong. You have not. And what I "proved" is that
>>Gyudon and yourself do not understand what evidence is, because it is not as you
>>and he think that evidence is personal testimony.
>
>i see. and you said instinct is necessary for life. all you have to do
>is prove it. go ahead. what instincts do humans have. you still havent
>named one. thats all you have to do. name one.
>
Keep blowing this "all you have to do" nonsense out your nos...
Evidence Mark VandeWettering 5/31/01 11:35 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>You really think this is a debate, when you dodge every question
>of mine, and pretend to disprove on your word alone?

Irony-o-meter in the red zone!

You know, if you really wanted to discuss the topic of instinct as you
claimed, you could challenge wf3h's definition of 'instinct', and present
examples of human instincts.  I can think of several human behaviors
which could reasonably qualify as `instincts', even though they don't
require humans to act under compulsion to obey them.

        Mark

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

[Newbie] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 5/31/01 11:35 PM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:YtGR6.147$v4.1124@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

> >what instinct do humans have? so far you keep dodging
> >the question.

Newbie is completely incapable of dealing with this issue honestly.  That's
par for the course.

> You really think this is a debate, when you dodge every
> question of mine, and pretend to disprove on your word
> alone?

That smell is the meltdown of every irony meter in Arizona.

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 5/31/01 11:40 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
[snip]
> and these instincts are? so far you havent mentioned any. not one. go
> ahead. tell us what instincts humans have. thats all you gotta do.

Humans, like all animals, have many instictive behaviours.
I think several people have pointed out some human instincts
in these threads.

Here are a few. The blink reflex. The rooting reflex in infant
humans. Our sexual relationships are powerfully driven by
inate instincts. Parenting instincts (especially maternal)
are another obvious example. Language is widely considered to
instinctive in humans.

Darwin wrote a fascinating mongraph on "THE EXPRESSION OF THE
EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS", which deals with many human
instinctive expressions.

Chris

[Newbie] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 5/31/01 11:40 PM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:uuFR6.91$v4.192@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

> I am well aware of the curious nature of what you consider
> "shown". You consider yourself right without providing
> evidence.

Wow...does THIS sound familiar or what?

What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?

And that's just *one* time that Newbie made a claim and has since insisted
he was right without providing evidence.

Newbie's hypocrisy is evident yet again.


Evidence muju51 5/31/01 11:40 PM
In article <3b172b73...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 01:06:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b17169f...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 31 May 2001 04:09:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve" instinct
>>>>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>>>>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that for >one species it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated that humans
>>>>have no instincts(which he has not),
>>>
>>>then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
>>>wait.
>>>
>>Why don't you tell us why you think humans do not have instincts
>
>i dont have to. you made a statement: instincts are necessary for
>survival. i say prove it. name an instinct humans have. its not up to
>me to disprove your statement. if i say you're a child molester, its
>up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.
>
Scienctific method is not "innocent until proven guilty," "scientist" wf3h.
You avoid every time my claim that it is scientifically accepted that animals do
have instincts, and that man is an animal. All you do is "hop up and down"
saying "prove it, prove it."
>
>.. This would
>>include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we are
>>animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.
>
>uh...we have 2 legs. we are animals. by your logic, all animals have 2
>legs. go tell your dog.
>
Nope. Another lie. By my logic, since animals have instincts, the question of
whether man has instincts is a valid consideration, especially since apes are
animals which are recognized to have instincts.

>
>>>
>>> that does not mean that they did not have
>>>>those instincts in the past.
>>>
>>>and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
>>>pleading'. you HOPE its true so you assert it is.
>>>
>>No, this is called "evolution".
>
>again...prove it. prove humans had instincts in the past they lost.
>
You prove that apes do not have instincts, and that man is not evolved animals.

>
>How do you know we had ancestors that were
>>related to apes? Is this special pleading?
>
>thats what the fossils show. morphology...
>
Prove it.

>
> Besides, I did not *say* humans had
>>instincts in the past; I said that even assuming that h...
Evidence muju51 6/1/01 12:05 AM
In article <slrn9hednm...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
VandeWettering says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>You really think this is a debate, when you dodge every question
>>of mine, and pretend to disprove on your word alone?
>
>Irony-o-meter in the red zone!
>
Its just par for the course for you to imply that I pretend to disprove on my
word alone and/or dodge questions, yet you would not dream of providing even the
slightest bit of evidence of that. Perhaps you would like to start with this
thread.

>
>You know, if you really wanted to discuss the topic of instinct as you
>claimed, you could challenge wf3h's definition of 'instinct', and present
>examples of human instincts.  I can think of several human behaviors
>which could reasonably qualify as `instincts', even though they don't
>require humans to act under compulsion to obey them.
>
What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to my questions
first...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 12:05 AM
From Chris Ho-Stuart:

I wonder, though, if there is a difference between an instinct and a reflex...

And language might be one of those meme things we hear about sometimes.

Sex, though, is interesting from an instinctual standpoint.

But I'm wondering whet...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 12:10 AM
From newbie:

>Absense of *personal knowledge*(evidence) is not evidence of absense.

Absence of empirical evidence certainly is support for absence.

>>If you've seen one, I'd like to know about it. I don't want goblins running
>>around my room.

>And if I had, what difference would that make? Goblins would still be running
>around your room.

But if we have no evidence of the same, then is not the conclusion that there...

[Horn lie] Re: Evidence muju51 6/1/01 12:15 AM
In article <0VFR6.30643$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn says...This is just another Horn lie: "has since insisted that he was right..."
>
Horn strengthens evidence against himself that he is a lying fool.
>
Keep up the good work, fool.

[Newbie evasion] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 6/1/01 12:20 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:ScHR6.180$v4.2337@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <0VFR6.30643$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
says...
> >
> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:uuFR6.91$v4.192@www.newsranger.com...
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> I am well aware of the curious nature of what you
> >> consider "shown". You consider yourself right
> >> without providing evidence.
> >
> >Wow...does THIS sound familiar or what?
> >
> >What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component
> >to life other than chemical processes?
> >
> >And that's just *one* time that Newbie made a claim and
> >has since insisted he was right without providing evidence.
> >
> >Newbie's hypocrisy is evident yet again.
>
> This is just another Horn lie: "has since insisted that he was right..."

How many times has Newbie dodged this question?  How many times has Newbie
said that his claims are not his to "prove," and that they stand unless
"disp...

[Newbie] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 6/1/01 12:20 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:D3HR6.173$v4.1871@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <slrn9hednm...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
> VandeWettering says...
> >
> >On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You really think this is a debate, when you dodge every
> >>question of mine, and pretend to disprove on your word
> >>alone?
> >
> >Irony-o-meter in the red zone!
> >
> Its just par for the course for you to imply that I pretend to
> disprove on my word alone and/or dodge questions...

Unless one has been remarkably unobservant for the past several months, this
is *precisely* what Newbie does. Newbie's claims are to be accepted
(sometimes as "disproof" of what another has said) entirely based on his own
presumed authority.

> ...yet you would not dream of providing even the


> slightest bit of evidence of that. Perhaps you would
> like to start with this thread.

Newbie makes a lot of noise about how nearly every...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 12:30 AM
In article <20010601030843.18636.00004719@ng-mq1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010601014101.11939.00000512@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>From newbie:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010531182920.15558.00004124@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>
>>>>>From newbie:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <20010531124046.14764.00004012@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>>says...
>>>
>>>>>>>From newbie:
>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <20010531030110.13806.00004089@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>>>>says...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>From ol' noobs:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <20010530213936.28965.00003655@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>>>>>>says...
>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>>And even if he had demonstrated that
>>>>>>>>humans
>>>>>>>>have no instincts(which he has not),
>>>
>>>>>>>Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which
>>is
>>>>>>>excellent evidence for his claim.
>>>
>>>>>>unbelievable.
>>>
>>>>>What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my
>>claim
>>...
[Horn foolishness] Re: Evidence muju51 6/1/01 1:00 AM
In article <SkHR6.31059$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:ScHR6.180$v4.2337@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>> In article <0VFR6.30643$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
>says...
>> >
>> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:uuFR6.91$v4.192@www.newsranger.com...
>> >
>> >[Snip]
>> >
>> >> I am well aware of the curious nature of what you
>> >> consider "shown". You consider yourself right
>> >> without providing evidence.
>> >
>> >Wow...does THIS sound familiar or what?
>> >
>> >What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component
>> >to life other than chemical processes?
>> >
>> >And that's just *one* time that Newbie made a claim and
>> >has since insisted he was right without providing evidence.
>> >
>> >Newbie's hypocrisy is evident yet again.
>>
>> This is just another Horn lie: "has since insisted that he was right..."
>
>How many times has Newbie dodged this ques...
[Newbie's idiocies] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 6/1/01 1:20 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:RSHR6.193$v4.3162@www.newsranger.com...

> In article <SkHR6.31059$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
says...
>
> Yes, if I or any other make a claim the CLAIM stands
> unless disproven. Even if the claim is not supported by
> sufficient evidence to convince the fool Horn.

There is a difference between "sufficient evidence" and "no evidence."

Newbie has never presented any evidence.

> Maybe Horn skipped class the day they discussed what
> a CLAIM is.

Once again, Newbie's colossal arrogance is his undoing.  The fact is that
the person making a claim has the responsibility to support it.  A claim
does not automatically stand unless disproven.  I leave it as an exercise
for the reader to determine where such things would go were that the case.

Newbie doesn't have the brain power to contemplate such a thing.

[Horn's idiocies] Re: Evidence muju51 6/1/01 1:45 AM
In article <1aIR6.31487$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:RSHR6.193$v4.3162@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <SkHR6.31059$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
>says...
>>
>> Yes, if I or any other make a claim the CLAIM stands
>> unless disproven. Even if the claim is not supported by
>> sufficient evidence to convince the fool Horn.
>
>There is a difference between "sufficient evidence" and "no evidence."
>
TRUE.

>
>Newbie has never presented any evidence.
>
Of what. This is just a maniac screaming in the woods, folks.
>
>> Maybe Horn skipped class the day they discussed what
>> a CLAIM is.
>
>Once again, Newbie's colossal arrogance is his undoing.  
>
In Horns demented mind.

>
>The fact is that
>the person making a claim has the responsibility to support it.  
>
A claim needs support to be accepted. Since Horn is interjecting in the thread
about instincts, perhaps Horn will enlighten us...
[Newbie] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 6/1/01 1:55 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:QyIR6.230$v4.3445@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <1aIR6.31487$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
says...
> >
> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:RSHR6.193$v4.3162@www.newsranger.com...
>
> >> In article <SkHR6.31059$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
> >says...
> >>
> >> Yes, if I or any other make a claim the CLAIM stands
> >> unless disproven. Even if the claim is not supported by
> >> sufficient evidence to convince the fool Horn.
> >
> >There is a difference between "sufficient evidence" and "no evidence."
> >
> TRUE.
> >
> >Newbie has never presented any evidence.
> >
> Of what. This is just a maniac screaming in the woods, folks.

Yawn...

> >> Maybe Horn skipped class the day they discussed what
> >> a CLAIM is.
> >
> >Once again, Newbie's colossal arrogance is his undoing.
>
> In Horns demented mind.

We'll see.

> >The fact is that the person making a claim has the responsibility
> >to support it.
>
> A claim needs support to be accepted.

Which is precisely why Newbie's claims have been challenged.  There has been
no evidence to support most (if not all) of Newbie's claims (such as my
alleged questioning of him with respect to bird flight rather than the more
general challenges about the laws of matter that they were).

Newbie does not support his claims, and so he has contradicted himself.  He
says a claim "needs support to be accepted," yet also tells us that HIS
claims must be accepted until disproven, even though he never supports his
claims.

> Since Horn is interjecting in the thread about instincts,
> ...

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 2:15 AM
"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3b16e06d$0$15026$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...

> > > Then we eat the cows

> > non-spontaneous activity, not dependent on sunlight to occur.

> Cutting a steak and chewing  it, obviously happens, therefore it must be
> thermodynamically feasible, ie, spontaneous. Otherwise we'd just sit there
> watching the steak get cold without the possibility to eat it. The reason
> that we can eat it is that we can move a number of muscles in our arms and
> in our jaws that allow us to perform the maneuvers necessary to eat the
> steak. These movements are possible thanks to the actin -myosin
interactions
> in our skeletal muscle. These actin -myosin interactions are driven by the
> hydrolysis of ATP. This ATP was obtained by phosphorylation of ADP. The
> phosphorylation of ADP to ATP occurs thanks to the energy derived from the
> oxidation of fuels, such as carbohydrates, fat and  proteins that we
ingest
> in our diet. These carbo...

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 2:15 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:uuFR6.91$v4.192@www.newsranger.com...

> >>>What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my
claim is

> >>>unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.

> >>Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the
fallacy of
> >>your claim. Here is the standard evolutionist response: Just because you
don't
> >>"see" something means nothing. We couldn't care less about what you
"see" or
> >>think. You show a total lack of understanding of what evidence is with
this
> >>statement: "I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which

is
> >>excellent evidence for his claim."

> >and you assert instinct is NECESSARY for life. when shown this is


> >wrong, you say 'unbelievable', as if that proves something.

> I am well aware of the curious nature of what you consider "shown". You


consider
> yourself right without providing evidence.

No, see, you're confused.  Again.

You made the assertion that instincts were needed for survival, did you not?

You have to back that up.  That's your job.  If someone says, "what about
Humans?" you have to show why humans are a part of this.  The simplest thing
would be to name an instinct.  You have been playing dodgeball with that one
for a dozen or so posts thus far.

...

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 2:15 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:aqBR6.8116$rn5.366380@www.newsranger.com...

> >>>Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which


is
> >>>excellent evidence for his claim.

> >>unbelievable.

> >What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my
claim is
> >unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.

> Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the fallacy
of
> your claim. Here is the standard evolutionist response: Just because you
don't
> "see" something means nothing. We couldn't care less about what you "see"
or
> think. You show a total lack of understanding of what evidence is with
this
> statement: "I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
> excellent evidence for his claim."

Of course, the proper thing is just to accept your word for it and not
demand even a shred of evidence.  Silly evolutionists, wanting evidence when
Newbie's word is all tha...

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 2:45 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:WlFR6.78$v4.174@www.newsranger.com...

> >>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve"
instinct
> >>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved
instinct."
> >>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that
for >one species it is not.

> >>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated


that humans
> >>have no instincts(which he has not),

> >then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
> >wait.

> Why don't you tell us why you think humans do not have instincts. This


would
> include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we
are
> animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.

The burden of proof is on you.  And the issue is not overall "animals," but
a specific animal, "humans.

This is dodging, you know.  Horn is right - You will do anything but answer
a question, won't you.

> > that does not mean that they did not have
> >>those instincts in the past.

> >and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
> >pleading'. you HOPE its true so you assert it is.

> No, this is called "evolution".

I don't think that that word means what you think it does.

Evolution does not say that humans started off with instincts,does it?  I'd
liek a citation of this.

> How do you know we had ancestors that were
> related to apes? Is this special pleading?

Instincts do not show up in the fossil record, I don't think.

> Besides, I did not *say* humans had
> instincts in the past; I said that even assuming that humans do not now
have
> instincts that does not mean they did not have them in the past.

Which is meaningless conjecture.

> >If you wish to claim that human ancestors did not
> >>have instincts, go for it.
> >
> >we dont have them today. thats proof enough.

> On your say so? I dont think so.

You were asked numerous times to name one.  Yet, we are to believe that we
do have instincts on your say so even though you ha...

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 2:45 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:%LFR6.113$v4.496@www.newsranger.com...

> >>>>>humans have no instincts
> >>>>>humans have life
> >>>>>therefore you're disproven.

> >>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:

> >>>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
> >>>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
> >>>learn to follow the thread.

> >>You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans
evolved, right?
> >>You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)

> >we are still evolving. if you think instincts are necessary for
> >evolution, we should be dying, not evolving.

> I wouldnt imagine you considering the differences in selection pressures
in
> humans being any different that apes, so I am not surprised you answer
this way.

Why would we be any different?

> One little problem. If you think we are evolving and not dying, then show
me
> some evolution.

Oh brother...

> The show is not over on this very recent evolutionary animal
> called man as to whether he will survive or not. Evolution *is* change
OVER
> TIME.

Yes, but even though the changes are slow, they are still changes that are
taking place.

> >>> "What I find most intriguing is
> >>>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is
survival, and
> >>>>instinct is central to survival.

> >>>no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
> >>>yet we've been around for about 150,000 yrs.

> >>You SERIOUSLY think the second sentence supports the first? And you
still have
> >>not shown that humans do not have instincts. You have shown NOTHING.

> >again..i ask a simple question:
> >
> >what instincts do humans have? you say we have them. its up to you to
> >prove we do. you say instincts are necessary for life. prove it.

> Yes, you asked a simple question.

One you still have yet to answer, of course.  Skillful dodgeball playing.

> But I asked a simple question of you, whether
> animals have instincts, and whether man is an animal.

Irrelevant.  Fish have gills and fish are animals, does that mean ALL
animals have gills?

The issue is you said ALL animals, did you not?  The example of humans was
shown to be an exception.  All it takes is one exception to throw your use
of the word "ALL," doesn't it?

> This is enough to throw
> the burden of proof to you of your claim that man does not have instincts,
> UNLESS you deny that animals have instincts, or...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:25 AM
In article <9f6u30$5bmu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:aqBR6.8116$rn5.366380@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which
>is
>> >>>excellent evidence for his claim.
>
>> >>unbelievable.
>
>> >What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my
>claim is
>> >unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.
>
>> Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the fallacy
>of
>> your claim. Here is the standard evolutionist response: Just because you
>don't
>> "see" something means nothing. We couldn't care less about what you "see"
>or
>> think. You show a total lack of understanding of what evidence is with
>this
>> statement: "I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
>> excellent evidence for his claim."
>
>Of course, the proper thing is just to accept your word for it a...
Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:35 AM
In article <9f7ar2$aie4$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:uuFR6.91$v4.192@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my
>claim is
>> >>>unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.
>
>> >>Even more unbelievable is your apparent lack of understanding the
>fallacy of
>> >>your claim. Here is the standard evolutionist response: Just because you
>don't
>> >>"see" something means nothing. We couldn't care less about what you
>"see" or
>> >>think. You show a total lack of understanding of what evidence is with
>this
>> >>statement: "I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which
>is
>> >>excellent evidence for his claim."
>
>> >and you assert instinct is NECESSARY for life. when shown this is
>> >wrong, you say 'unbelievable', as if that proves something.
>
>> I am well aware of the curious nature of what you consider "shown". You
>consider
>> yourself right without providing evidence.
>
>No, see, you're confused.  Again.
>
No, you are confused. You assume I consider myself "right" about instincts and
survival. If you keep saying that I do over and over, you might believe it. This
is called fantasy, not reality. NEVER have I said my claim is right, or insisted
it is right. It is a c...
Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:50 AM
In article <9f7ahg$a76s$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:WlFR6.78$v4.174@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve"
>instinct
>> >>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved
>instinct."
>> >>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that
>for >one species it is not.
>
>> >>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated
>that humans
>> >>have no instincts(which he has not),
>
>> >then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
>> >wait.
>
>> Why don't you tell us why you think humans do not have instincts. This
>would
>> include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we
>are
>> animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.
>
>The burden of proof is on you.
>
YES IT IS. I AGREE. The burden of "proof" is on me to support my claim. It is
ALSO the burden of proof on you to prove that humans do not have instincts
before you can disprove my claim.

>
> And the issue is not overall "animals," but
>a specific animal, "humans.
>
>This is dodging, you know.  Horn is right - You will do anything but answer
>a question, won't you.
>
Simpleton.
>
>> > that does not mean that they did not have
>> >>those instincts in the past.
>
>> >and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
>> >pleadin...
Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:55 AM
In article <9f7bik$1sp4$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:%LFR6.113$v4.496@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>>>humans have no instincts
>> >>>>>humans have life
>> >>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>
>> >>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>
>> >>>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
>> >>>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
>> >>>learn to follow the thread.
>
>> >>You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans
>evolved, right?
>> >>You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)
>
>> >we are still evolving. if you think instincts are necessary for
>> >evolution, we should be dying, not evolving.
>
>> I wouldnt imagine you considering the differences in selection pressures
>in
>> humans being any different that apes, so I am not surprised you answer
>this way.
>
>Why would we be any different?
>
Is this you asking yourself why apes have instincts and we dont?

>
>> One little problem. If you think we are evolving and not dying, then show
>me
>> some evolution.
>
>Oh brother...
>
Too "deep" I see.

>
>> The show is not over on this very recent evolutionary animal
>...
Evidence crwydryn 6/1/01 4:45 AM
wf...@ptd.net wrote in message <3b17184b...@news.ptdprolog.net>...
>On 31 May 2001 04:35:14 -0400, "crwydryn" <ke...@remove.canada.com>
>wrote:
>
>>[piggybacking]
>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>
>>[enormous snip]
>>
>>>>humans have no instincts
>>
>>
>>I have to disagree.  Humans do have instincts.  Human behaviour is not
>>strongly influenced by these instincts, but we do have instincts in any
>>reasonable definition of the word.  Or do you also claim that chimpanzees
>>don't have instincts?  How about other primates?
>
>and this instinct is?
>>
>>Yes, human behaviour is *primarily* learned, and these learned behaviours
>>frequently contradict the instincts we do have,
>
>how does learning conflict with instinct? again...what instincts do we
>have? all you have to do is name one.
>
> but we are animals, and like
>>any other animal we have instincts.   I suppose it does depend on where
you
>>draw the line between instinct and reflex, but still it seems clear that
>>there are human instincts.
>
>no, it doesnt at all. there is a difference between instinct and
>reflex.
>>
>>However, there are more complex behaviours that are also apparently
>>unlearned:
>>
>>- the urge to seek out and socialise with other humans (this one's
debatable
>>I suppose)
>
>there are all kinds of social animals. this is not an 'instinct'.


It does not follow that because there are all kinds of social animals the
behaviour involved in socialization cannot be instinctive.  However, I agree
that in the case of humans it definitely isn't obviously an instinct (and
I'm not in a position to argue the point at the moment) so I will concede to
your position that it is not.

>>- self-grooming (...

Evidence crwydryn 6/1/01 4:45 AM
Gyudon Z wrote in message <20010601030334.18636.00004718@ng-mq1.aol.com>...

>From Chris Ho-Stuart:
>
>>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> and these instincts are? so far you havent mentioned any. not one. go
>>> ahead. tell us what instincts humans have. thats all you gotta do.
>>
>>Humans, like all animals, have many instictive behaviours.
>>I think several people have pointed out some human instincts
>>in these threads.
>>
>>Here are a few. The blink reflex. The rooting reflex in infant
>>humans.

I think these can be better classified as reflexes, for obvious reasons -
and that it's important to distinguish between reflexes and instincts.

>>Our sexual relationships are powerfully driven by
>>inate instincts. Parenting instincts (especially maternal)
>>are another obvious example. Language is widely considered to
>>instinctive in humans.


There are those, however, who insist that it is a primarily learned
behaviour that is possible only secondarily as a byproduct of other
modifications in our brains.  Personally, I tend to lean toward the process
of acquisition being mostly driven by instinct, especially considering the
*very* interesting universal patterns of error and experimentation that go
along with learning a language.  The actual use of language for
communication is where it gets sticky and it's tough to tell where the line
between programming and learning is.

>>
>>Darwin wrote a fascinating mongraph on "THE EXPRESSION OF THE
>>EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS", which deals with many human
>>instinctive expressions.
>
>I wonder, though, if there is a difference between an instinct and a
reflex...


I wonder too, but I would tend to define the difference as follows:

- reflex is a simple (one step?/short timeframe) genetically programmed
behaviour that is uninterruptable [in humans blinking when objects approach
the face, dodging when things approach any other pa...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:25 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 02:13:38 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>>
>I can hop up and down as long as I wish. I had been thinking of seeing who
>stopped hopping up and down first. Wf3h and you have not offered any disproof of
>my claim.
>
do you still molest your children? disprove that you do. you
creationists stand logic on its head. its up to the affirmative side
to support its argument. if i say the earth revolves around the sun,
its up to me to issue supporting evidence. where's your evidence
humans have instincts?

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:25 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b172b05...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>i see. and you said instinct is necessary for life. all you have to do
>>is prove it. go ahead. what instincts do humans have. you still havent
>>named one. thats all you have to do. name one.
>>
>Keep blowing this "all you have to do" nonsense out your nose. As well as your
>pseudo-scientific logic of "proving". You disprove it.

do you still molest your children? you say you dont?

disprove it.

>>
>>>>
>>
>>again...i say name one. what pattern of behavior do humans have that
>>is genetically programmed? the mating dance of a turkey is an
>>instinct.
>>
>Prove it, prove it, prove it. No it is not. There. I disproved you.

all you have to do is name one human instinct. in spite of all the
bandwidth you've wasted, you havent named a single one. not one.

why not?

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:25 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>>
>What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to my questions
>first asked in the thread "instincts." I could do many things, including
>proceeding like you outline above. Yet before this, there are more basic things
>I feel need to be settled, at least with some posters, including wf3h. Science
>does not "prove", science attempts to disprove. You fall silent on issues such
>as this and interject now with an ironymeter comment, and then advise me how to
>approach a debate. Sorry if I do not think like you do, thank the Lord.

'disprove' means to subject to test. the test is to name a single
instinct in humans. so far you havent done it.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:30 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 02:38:27 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b172b73...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>i dont have to. you made a statement: instincts are necessary for
>>survival. i say prove it. name an instinct humans have. its not up to
>>me to disprove your statement. if i say you're a child molester, its
>>up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.
>>
>Scienctific method is not "innocent until proven guilty," "scientist" wf3h.
>You avoid every time my claim that it is scientifically accepted that animals do
>have instincts, and that man is an animal. All you do is "hop up and down"
>saying "prove it, prove it."
>>
right. because thats how science works: you bring evidence to support
your claim, otherwise anyone could say anything. i could say your
molest your children and its up to you to disprove it. we dont waste
the effort to test a statement with no evidence.

so go ahead: name a single...even one...human instinct.

>>.. This would


>>>include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we are
>>>animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.
>>
>>uh...we have 2 legs. we are animals. by your logic, all animals have 2
>>legs. go tell your dog.
>>
>Nope. Another lie. By my logic, since animals have instincts, the question of
>whether man has instincts is a valid consideration, especially since apes are
>animals which are recognized to have instincts.

apes also have full body hair. so what? again...you cant name an
instinct in humans.

>>
>>
>>again...prove it. prove humans had instincts in the past they lost.
>>
>You prove that apes do not have instincts, and that man is not evolved animals.

apes are irrelevant. their behavior is different than ours. thats one
reason we split off from apes millions of yrs ago. you're still
dodging the question

>>
>>How do you know we had ancestors that were
>>>related to apes? Is this special pleading?
>>
>>thats what the fossils show. morphology...
>>
>Prove it.

irrelevant. the issue is human instinct. you're dodging.

>> Besides, I did not *say* huma...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:35 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 02:35:54 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>[snip]
>> and these instincts are? so far you havent mentioned any. not one. go
>> ahead. tell us what instincts humans have. thats all you gotta do.
>
>Humans, like all animals, have many instictive behaviours.
>I think several people have pointed out some human instincts
>in these threads.
>
>Here are a few. The blink reflex.

a reflex is not an instinct.

 The rooting reflex in infant
>humans. Our sexual relationships are powerfully driven by

>inate instincts. Parenting instincts (especially maternal)
>are another obvious example. Language is widely considered to
>instinctive in humans.

parents dont have instincts. language is not an instinct because its
not a response to an external stimulus.

>

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:35 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 01:31:18 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1717b0...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 31 May 2001 00:10:13 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b15b4b5...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>humans have no instincts
>>>>>>humans have life
>>>>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>>>>
>>>>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
>>>>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
>>>>learn to follow the thread.
>>>>
>>>You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans evolved, right?
>>>You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)
>>
>>we are still evolving. if you think instincts are necessary for
>>evolution, we should be dying, not evolving.
>>
>I wouldnt imagine you considering the differences in selection pressures in
>humans being any different that apes, so I am not surprised you answer this way.
>One little problem. If you think we are evolving and not dying, then show me
>some evolution. The show is not over on this very recent evolutionary animal

>called man as to whether he will survive or not. Evolution *is* change OVER
>TIME.

gladly.

american indians are all type O blood. the allele frequ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:35 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 06:52:42 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <9f7bik$1sp4$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...
>>
>>
>>> I wouldnt imagine you considering the differences in selection pressures
>>in
>>> humans being any different that apes, so I am not surprised you answer
>>this way.
>>
>>Why would we be any different?
>>
>Is this you asking yourself why apes have instincts and we dont?

humans have opposable thumbs. apes dont.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:40 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 07:44:11 -0400, "crwydryn" <ke...@remove.canada.com>
wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote in message <3b17184b...@news.ptdprolog.net>...
>>On 31 May 2001 04:35:14 -0400, "crwydryn" <ke...@remove.canada.com>
>
>>
>>there are all kinds of social animals. this is not an 'instinct'.
>
>
>>
>>none of these is a genetically programmed pattern of behavior,
>>intiated by an external stimulus, that is carried to completion, and
>>cannot be interrupted except by disabling the organism. thats what an
>>instinct is. you can interrupt language. you can interrupt grooming.
>>
>
>Given your definition, I agree with you that humans have no instincts.
>However:
>
>Hibernation can be interrupted once triggered.  Migration can be interrupted
>once triggered.  Mating displays can be interrupted once triggered.
>Brooding can be interrupted once triggered.  "Homing" can be interrupted
>once triggered.
>
>These things are commonly accepted as instinctive.
>
>My position is that as your definiti...

Evidence Dave Horn 6/1/01 5:55 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:M9KR6.270$v4.4443@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip a whole lot of Newbie whining]

What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?

How did science expose the Piltdown hoax and fail to use the scientific
method to do so?

If there was no evidence that "wilderness_voice" lied, why was he
stigmatized as a liar?

And so on...and so on...

But let's add...

Can Newbie name a human instinct?

I'll add...

Does Newbie understand the difference between an instinct and a reflex?

[Horn's idiocies] Re: Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 6:00 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 04:42:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <1aIR6.31487$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn says...
>>
>>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>news:RSHR6.193$v4.3162@www.newsranger.com...
>>> In article <SkHR6.31059$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
>>says...
>>>
>>> Yes, if I or any other make a claim the CLAIM stands
>>> unless disproven. Even if the claim is not supported by
>>> sufficient evidence to convince the fool Horn.
>>
>>There is a difference between "sufficient evidence" and "no evidence."
>>
>TRUE.
>>
>>Newbie has never presented any evidence.
>>
>Of what. This is just a maniac screaming in the woods, folks.
>>
>>> Maybe Horn skipped class the day they discussed what
>>> a CLAIM is.
>>
>>Once again, Newbie's colossal arrogance is his undoing.  
>>
>In Horns demented mind.
>>
>>The fact is that
>>the person making a claim has the responsibility to support it.  
>>
>A claim needs support to be...

[Newbie] Re: Evidence Dave Horn 6/1/01 6:00 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:6%JR6.264$v4.3886@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <9f6u30$5bmu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...

[Snip]

> >Of course, the proper thing is just to accept your word for
> >it and not demand even a shred of evidence.  Silly
> >evolutionists, wanting evidence when Newbie's word is
> >all that is necessary!

Well, Newbie has said his claims stand unless disproven and he has said this
on several occasions.  (It wasn't until last night that he qualified this
with the statement that "unsupported claims stand as unsupported claims,"
which is so obvious that only Newbie seems to think it needed to be stated).
Newbie has also said on several occasions and rather directly that he hasn't
had to support several statements that he has made.

> You are beginning to look as fruity as the others in this thread.

Isn't it amazing how often this happens?  We should be detecting a pattern
by now.  Everyone who disagrees...

Evidence David Jensen 6/1/01 6:00 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:17:16 -0400, in talk.origins
wf...@ptd.net wrote in <3b17169f...@news.ptdprolog.net>:


>then, by all means...tell me what instincts we have. go ahead. we'll
>wait.

It pains me to jump in here, but we do have instincts (controlled as
they are), starting with instinctive grasping and nursing.

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/1/01 6:20 AM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>On 31 May 2001 20:40:08 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:

>snip>
>>>>The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>>>>vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>>>>falls back to earth as well.

>>>I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
>>>I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
>>>the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
>>>the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.  

>>I'm confused by this response.

>>You equate "free energy" with the energy that is involved in pushing a
>>rock uphill.

>no, I equated POSITIVE free energy as the energy involved in pushing a
>rock uphill.

Ok, that's what you said. Am I correct in understanding that positive
free energy (as in potential energy) to energy that is able to perform
work? If that is indeed the case, please explain where the energy
generated by hydro plants comes from. You will, I hope, agree that the
electrical power of a hydro plant is a form of positive free energy.

[snip]
>>In your response you intro...

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/1/01 6:20 AM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>On 31 May 2001 20:59:41 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>wrote:

>>snip>
>>Who is this "Jesus God"? I went 12 years to a catholic school and this is
>>the first mention of this person I have heard.

>are you serious?  They don't talk about Jesus God in catholic schools?

No.

They talk about Jesus, they talk about a god, they talk about a holy
ghost and they talk about saints, but they don't talk about "Jesus
God". Whatever that may be, it's not in the catholic dictionary.

>Jesus God is the human manifestation of the one true God of the
>universe.  He broke through human history in order to reveal Himself
>to us.

That's not catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine Jesus was
the child of a god and a human female. The Roman Catholic Church
asserts that this Jesus was a special, but fully human being, not a
god.

FYI, the assertions above represent what I was taught by the Fathers
Franciscan, not my opinions. This is on...

Evidence Thomas Griffin 6/1/01 9:00 AM

zoe_althrop wrote:

> On 31 May 2001 21:34:21 -0400, Thomas Griffin <tgri...@uic.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >zoe_althrop wrote:
> >>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
> >> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
> >> the existence of Jesus God.
> >>
> >> > But, I'll accept your
> >> >explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
> >> >creationist when asking the above questions.  You get to dodge the
> >> >challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
> >> >hundreds of times already.
> >> >
> >>
> >> is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?  Or
> >> has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
> >> of God,  you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
> >> how stable and centered such a person might be?
> >>
> >
> >There are very good reasons to doubt the reliability of witness. Firstly, we
> >have no reason to think these people are not lying.
> >We know for a fact that people lie. We do not know that God exists. Therefore
> >if a person claims that they experienced "Jesus God", it is far more likely
> >that they are lying than that god caused the experience. Secondly, even if we
> >assume that these people are acurately reporting their recollection of the
> >experience there is mountains of experimental scientific evidence showing the
> >lack of reliability of eyewitteness testimony. People are very poor at
> >accurately reporting even everyday mundane events that they are familiar
> >with. We also know that emotions, prior beliefs, physiological illness,
> >fatigue, lack of nourishment can greatly effect perception and cause
> >hallucination. Lastly, as you said, these testimonies have been "passed from
> >one trustworthy person to another", and we certainly know that information is
> >lost, added, and distorted when it depends upon the recall ability and verbal
> >ability of those involved in the transmission of that info.
> >So, just for starters we have four ind...

Evidence lenny 6/1/01 9:10 AM
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b170f48.7828350@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> the point is that these mechanisms are a result of decreased entropy.
> The energy required to reverse increasing entropy does not come from
> sunlight.  That "solution" has been a smoke screen for too long, I
> think.

And since you have demonstrated that you entirely fail to grasp the concepts
involved, what you think is of very little interest or importance.

> >> And are you classifying all of the above actions as non-spontaneous or
> >> spontaneous, Leo?
> >
> >Again, it depends on how you define your system. The change of free
energy
> >in a system depends on the limits of the system. Specify the limits of
the
> >system and I 'll tell you whether it is spontaneous or not. In any case,
I
> >fail to see what your point is.
> >
>
> my point is that in a supposedly primordial atmosphere where,
> supposedly, 2LoT held sway, what is the source of positive free
> energy?  Not sun...

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/1/01 9:20 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn9hednm...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...

>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You really think this is a debate, when you dodge every question
>>>of mine, and pretend to disprove on your word alone?
>>
>>Irony-o-meter in the red zone!
>>

>Its just par for the course for you to imply that I pretend to
>disprove on my word alone and/or dodge questions, yet you would
>not dream of providing even the slightest bit of evidence of that.
>Perhaps you would like to start with this thread.

I'm not implying.  I'm just stating what is apparent to anyone who
cares to read your posts.

>>You know, if you really wanted to discuss the topic of instinct as you
>>claimed, you could challenge wf3h's definition of 'instinct', and present
>>examples of human instincts.  I can think of several human behaviors
>>which could reasonably qualify as `instincts', even though they don't
>>require humans to act under compulsion to obey them.

>What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to
>my questions first asked in the thread "instincts." I could do many
>things, including proceeding like you outline above. Yet before
>this, there are more basic things I feel need to be settled, at
>least with some posters, including wf3h. Science does not "prove",
>science attempts to disprove. You fall silent on issues such as

>this and interject now with an ironymeter comment, and then advise
>me how to approach a debate. Sor...

Evidence Louann Miller 6/1/01 10:15 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 12:15:33 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn9hednm...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

Er ... I missed the previous parts of this thread. What does it prove
if humans do or don't have instincts, and who said so, and why is a
strict definition of instinct (as opposed to a continuum shading from
reflexes through instincts to culturally conditioned but widely
practiced behaviors) crucial to this?

Louann, minus a scorecard

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 10:50 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:M9KR6.270$v4.4443@www.newsranger.com...

> No, you are confused. You assume I consider myself "right" about instincts
and
> survival. If you keep saying that I do over and over, you might believe
it. This
> is called fantasy, not reality. NEVER have I said my claim is right, or
insisted
> it is right. It is a claim.

So what good is making claims that are not right then?  Do you just like
hearing the sound of your own voice?

I guess it's all my fault for thinking that you believed in what you said.
Silly me for not realizing that by your own admission, you were talking out
of your ass for no other reason than to... Well, fuck, I can't think of a
reason to spout claims that aren't right...

-Brian

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, two days, 15 hours, 47 minutes and 28
seconds.
16746 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,093.29.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 2 days, 3 hours, 30 minutes.

See my Sig Fil...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 11:00 AM
From David Jensen:

I thought we had established those were reflexes, though.

"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Evidence Brian O'Neill 6/1/01 11:00 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:TjKR6.278$v4.4828@www.newsranger.com...

> >The burden of proof is on you.

> YES IT IS. I AGREE. The burden of "proof" is on me to support my claim. It
is
> ALSO the burden of proof on you to prove that humans do not have instincts
> before you can disprove my claim.

He already made his case:  Humans don't have instincts.  What is he supposed
to do, document the instincts humans DO NOT HAVE, Newbie?  That's absurd.

If you were to say that a particular autistic child cannot speak, would you
have to provide a whole dictionary of words that the person cannot speak to
prove your point?  No.  Your point stands as it's own evidence.  However,
this person speaking even a single word falsifies that statement.

> > And the issue is not overall "animals," but
> >a specific animal, "humans.

> >This is dodging, you know.  Horn is right - You will do anything but
answer
> >a question, won't you.

> Simpleton.

Well that certainly changed my opinion.

> >> > that does not mean that they did not have
> >> >>those instincts in the past.

> >> >and how do you know they had them in the past? this is called 'special
> >> >pleading'. you HOPE its true so you assert it is.

> >> No, this is called "evolution".

> >I don't think that that word means what you think it does.

> So what.

If you're using a word wrong, then your conclusions are probably wrong too.

> >Evolution does not say that humans started off with instincts,does it?
I'd
> >liek a citation of this.

> I can give you plenty citations that show an acceptance of instinct in
primates.

Let's see them.  Not that I doubt you, but you have yet to name a single
instinct in modern humans of which you are (presumably) one.  You really
need to learn about this whole "proving your statements" think, I think.

> >> How do you k...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/1/01 11:00 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b170f48.7828350@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 20:23:15 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>

> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b15aae9.46798594@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >> On 29 May 2001 13:51:33 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3b139472.63939940@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >> >> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> >> >> rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> >> >> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
> >> >> rock pusher, is it?
> >> >
> >> >Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.
> >> >
> >> >1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
> >> >proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction
has a
> >> >positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
> >> >spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.
> >> >
> >> >2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
> >> >macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis.
> >>
> >> of course, without a system in place, sunlight would not cause
> >> photosynthesis to occur in chemicals lying loosely about, would it?
> >
> >I dont see what your point is. My reply was an illustration of how the
sun
> >can drive a number of reactions. Of course, for photosynthesis to occur
you
> >need a photosynthetic system.
>
> and it is this system that I'm talking about -- is it reasonable to
> think that a system that requires a decrease in entropy in order to
> form, will do so just as a result of spontaneous chemical reactions?

If the system is receiving energy from outside it, yes. It happens all the
time. Fridges make things colder, therefore reducing entropy. They need
energy to work, that is why you have to plug them in.


> >This is just one example, the energy from the
> >sun, like the energy from lightning can be captured by a high number of
> >chemicals.
> >
> >> >Then the cows eat
> >> >the plants,
> >>
> >> sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.
> >
> >Everything that happens is by definition thermodynamically spontaneous,
> >otherwise it would not happen. Therefore, the cows eating the plants is a
> >spontaneous process. Unless you want to argue that the cows are being
forced
> >to eat the plants. That of course depends on the farmer. Some are rather
> >pushy and make their cows eat against their will.
> >
>
> lol.  However, it sounds as if you're saying that there is really no
> such thing as non-spontaneous reactions.  What happened to the
> reversal of the effects of the 2LoT?

You are not trying to understand. The second law of thermodynamics can't be
reversed: it is a law.


>
> >> > synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
> >> >carbon sources in the plant.
> >>
> >> would you consider the movement of ions into a compartment against its
> >> concentration gradient to be spontaneous?
> >
> >Depends of course on how you define your system. The pumping of protons
out
> >of the mitochondria for instance is spontaneous if you define your system
> >including the whole mitochondria, ie with the respiratory chain included,
> >because the oxidation of the electron carriers supplies more than enough
> >energy to drive the protons out. On the other hand if you define your
syst...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/1/01 11:05 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b1716ae.9723270@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 20:55:03 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>

> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b15ad6d.47443331@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >> On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> snip>
> >> >
> >> >If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
> >> >positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
> >> >a "rock pusher".
> >> >
> >>
> >> that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
> >> pushing as a change in free energy.  It requires energy from an
> >> outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
> >> which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
> >> decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
> >> of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
> >> positive free energy.
> >>
> >> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
> >> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
> >> surface.
> >
> >You are wrong. Just 5 examples:
> >1. how do you get a suntan?
> >2. how do you make vitamin D?
> >3. How do you get skin cancer?
> >4. how do plants get energy from the sun?
> >5. How can you see?
> >
>
> I really meant that sunlight striking the body does not cause ...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 11:05 AM
To Louann Miller:

It all ties back into the question of how did life manage to survive before it
was innately aware that survival was a good thing.

Our newbie considered this innate knowledge as on the instinctual level, and
painted such knowledge as being necessary for survival.

We answered (for some reason I don't fully understand) ...

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/1/01 11:10 AM


My basic understanding is:

1. wf3h thinks humans don't have instincts
2. newbie thinks....

Actually, I guess I need a scorecard too.  I can't for the life of
me figure out how to characterize what newbie believes.  All I know
is that he's arguing an awful lot abou...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/1/01 11:20 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15ba8e.50804654@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 29 May 2001 13:42:43 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
> >mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
> >"empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code.
>
> that's my sloppy use of terms.  I should have said genetic coding
> system.

What, pray, is the genetic coding system?

>
> > What needs energy in a
> >living cell -in the form of ATP- is:  biosynthetic pathways, processes
that
> >involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.
> >
> >>They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.
> >
> >What are not "spontaneous mechanisms"?
> >
>
> oops, I snipped prematurely, and now have lost the train of thought.
>
> >> Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions, then if the genetic
> >> coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
> >> positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased.  Yet,
> >> if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
> >> free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?
> >
> >The sun, my friend. It has been shining on this earth for billions of
years.
> >
>
> the sun only provides free energy, imo.  What happens to that free
> energy, negative or positive, depends on spontaneous or
> non-spontaneous actions; is this correct?

1. The sun provides ENERGY. Not free energy.
2. What happens to the energy of the sun depends on whatever is receiving
it:

a. plants use it as their direct form of energy  for their metabolic
processes.
b. sun panels convert it into electricity.
c. Your ...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/1/01 11:30 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b171c3e.11146865@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 20:59:41 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >snip>

> >Who is this "Jesus God"? I went 12 years to a catholic school and this is
> >the first mention of this person I have heard.
>
> are you serious?  They don't talk about Jesus God in catholic schools?

No, and I have never heard this expression before.

> Jesus God is the human manifestation of the one true God of the
> universe.  He broke through human history in order to reveal Himself
> to us.

I read some myths about a man called Jesus , born in Palestine, who was
supposedy the son of a god.

>
> > And who are these reliable
> >witnesses over 2000  years that have met this Jesus God?
> >
>
> the widely varied people who put down their experience with God in
> writing, and over thousands of years.  Down at this end of our time,
> we have gathered all these various writings together, examined them
> and bound them into a single volume called the Bible.  As a result of
> such a thorough search for any mention of the one true God, there is
> no longer any "extra-Biblical" evidence to be found to add to the
> compilation.

I think that your biblical knowledge is as sketchy as your scientific
knowledge. The Bible is a selection of texts referring to a particular
religious tradition, ie, the Judeo-Christian. Many texts in the
Judeo-Christian tradition were included in the Bible, ...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/1/01 11:40 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b17194a.10391221@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 18:53:12 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)

> >wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >>The testimony of reliable
> >
> >You're going to have to justify your use of the word "reliable".
>
> when a witness is reliable, his story gets believed and passed on to
> other reliable witnesses.

So, listening to a story makes you a witness? That is very interesting. So,
I can say I witnessed Columbus disembarking in America. That's cool.

> The fact that the story of Jesus is still
> with us is evidence of the reliability of the first witnesses.  Do you
> see any followers of Zeus around today, or followers of any of the
> other false gods of literature?

Hey, why is Zeus a false god? Have more respect or his wrath will fall upon
you.

By the way, the fact that the story of Jesus is still with us is evidence
that the story of Jesus is still with us.

And remember, we are all atheists regarding most gods. Real atheists just go
one god further.

> >What
> >evidence do you have th...

Evidence Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. 6/1/01 12:15 PM
In article <3b15aac4...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop wrote:
>On 29 May 2001 17:03:49 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>Nantko Schanssema wrote:
>>>
>>> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>>>
>>> >positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>>> >rock up a hill.  If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>>> >this means that there was a "rock pusher" around.  The sun is not a
>>> >rock pusher, is it?
>>>
>>> The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>>> vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>>> falls back to earth as well.
>>>
>>
>>Yep, and sometimes that water vapor comes back down to earth in a rush
>>within a limited area, as in a mountain canyon with a creek flowing
>>through it.  Then you get a flash flood which tends to push a *lot* of
>>rocks around, and people too if they're unlucky enough to be there.
>>See the Big Thompson Canyon disaster in Colora...
Evidence newbie 6/1/01 2:08 PM
In article <3b178865...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b172b05...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>i see. and you said instinct is necessary for life. all you have to do
>>>is prove it. go ahead. what instincts do humans have. you still havent
>>>named one. thats all you have to do. name one.
>>>
>>Keep blowing this "all you have to do" nonsense out your nose. As well as your
>>pseudo-scientific logic of "proving". You disprove it.
>
>do you still molest your children? you say you dont?
>
>disprove it.
>
I could, but I don't need ot. It is an unsupported claim. In our society if one
makes an unsupported or false claim about another, they are sometimes breaking
laws.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>again...i say name one. what pattern of behavior do humans have that
>>>is genetically programmed? the mating dance of a turkey is an
>>>instinct.
>>>
>>Prove it, prove it,...
Evidence muju51 6/1/01 2:09 PM
In article <3b1788bb...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to my questions
>>first asked in the thread "instincts." I could do many things, including
>>proceeding like you outline above. Yet before this, there are more basic things
>>I feel need to be settled, at least with some posters, including wf3h. Science
>>does not "prove", science attempts to disprove. You fall silent on issues such
>>as this and interject now with an ironymeter comment, and then advise me how to
>>approach a debate. Sorry if I do not think like you do, thank the Lord.
>
>'disprove' means to subject to test. the test is to name a single
>instinct in humans. so far you havent done it.
>
So? Your point here is?
>
The "test" is whether you disproved my claim without providing any support for
why you think humans do not have instincts. You hop around all the t...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 2:20 PM
From newbie:

>In article <3b178865...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b172b05...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i see. and you said instinct is necessary for life. all you have to do
>>>>is prove it. go ahead. what instincts do humans have. you still havent
>>>>named one. thats all you have to do. name one.
>>>>
>>>Keep blowing this "all you have to do" nonsense out your nose. As well as
>your
>>>pseudo-scientific logic of "proving". You disprove it.
>>
>>do you still molest your children? you say you dont?
>>
>>disprove it.
>>
>I could, but I don't need ot. It is an unsupported claim.

So was your claim about humans and instincts, but that never seemed to bother
you...

>In our society if
>one
>makes an unsupported or false claim about another, they are sometimes
>breaking
>laws.

Ah, but how do we know that you don't molest children? You've never proved that
you don't.

>>>>again...i say name one. what pattern of behavior do humans have that
>>>>is genetically programmed? the mating dance of a turkey is an
>>>>instinct.

>>>Prove it, prove it, prove it. No it is not. There. I disproved you.

>>all you have to do is name one human instinct. in spite of all the
>...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 2:30 PM
In article <3b17896b...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>
>On 1 Jun 2001 02:38:27 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b172b73...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>i dont have to. you made a statement: instincts are necessary for
>>>survival. i say prove it. name an instinct humans have. its not up to
>>>me to disprove your statement. if i say you're a child molester, its
>>>up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.
>>>
>>Scienctific method is not "innocent until proven guilty," "scientist" wf3h.
>>You avoid every time my claim that it is scientifically accepted that animals do
>>have instincts, and that man is an animal. All you do is "hop up and down"
>>saying "prove it, prove it."
>>>
>right. because thats how science works: you bring evidence to support
>your claim, otherwise anyone could say anything.
>
Another claim? If evidence(sufficient for you I suppose) is not used to support
a theory, then you could (scientifically) say anything. Sure, wf3h. Just say
anything.
>
>i could say your
>molest your children and its up to you to disprove it. we dont waste
>the effort to test a statement with no evidence.
>
In science, you are most likely right. In law, if you accuse another with an
unsupported claim(accusation) you are required to provide evidence. In law, we
are innocent(correct) until proven guilty(wrong). In science, a claim is
guilty(wrong) until proven innocent(right). This is why there are things called
unsupported theory, untested theory. Science proposes possible explanations(and
does NOT assume they are the right ones) and then tries to disprove those
explanations. You have not disproved my claim. You dodge this every time. You
are a liar.
>
>so go ahead: name a single...even one...human instinct.
>
Like talking to a brick wall. And you think if I "name a single one...just
one..." I would not still be talking to a brick wall?
>
>>>.. This would
>>>>include telling us whether you think animals have instincts, whether we are
>>>>animals, and why we as animals do not. We'll wait.
>>>
>>>uh...we have 2 legs. we are animals. by your logic, all animals have 2
>>>legs. go tell your dog.
>>>
>>Nope. Another lie. By my logic, since animals have instincts, the question of
>>whether man has instincts is a valid consideration, especially since apes are
>>animals which are recognized to have instincts.
>
>apes also have full body hair. so what? again...you cant name an
>instinct in humans.
>
So what??
>
>>>
>>>
>>>again...prove it. prove humans had instincts in the past they lost.
>>>
>>You prove that apes do not have instincts, and that man is not evolved animals.
>
>apes are irrelevant. their behavior is different than ours. thats one
>reason we split off from apes millions of yrs ago.
>
More "evidence"?
>
>you're still dodging the question
>
And you have disproved my claim?
>
>>>
>>>How do you know we had ancestors that were
>>>>related to apes? Is this special pleading?
>>>
>>>thats wha...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 2:35 PM
From newbie:

>In article <3b1788bb...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to my
>questions
>>>first asked in the thread "instincts." I could do many things, including
>>>proceeding like you outline above. Yet before this, there are more basic
>things
>>>I feel need to be settled, at least with some posters, including wf3h.
>Science
>>>does not "prove", science attempts to disprove. You fall silent on issues
>such
>>>as this and interject now with an ironymeter comment, and then advise me
>how to
>>>approach a debate. Sorry if I do not think like you do, thank the Lord.
>>
>>'disprove' means to subject to test.

That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...

>>the test is to name a single
>>instinct in humans. so far you havent done it.

>So? Your point here is?

That you have not tested it.

>The "test" is whether you disproved my claim without providing any support
>for
>why you think humans do not have instincts.

The support is that you have not named a single human instinct. Nor does it
look like you are about to.

>You hop around all the time
>yelling
>Liar! Prove it! typical creationist! when someone makes any kind of
>statement,
>comment or claim.

Whenever someone makes a positive claim, yes.

If you claimed, for example, that living things could not ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 2:35 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 16:52:57 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b178865...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b172b05...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i see. and you said instinct is necessary for life. all you have to do
>>>>is prove it. go ahead. what instincts do humans have. you still havent
>>>>named one. thats all you have to do. name one.
>>>>
>>>Keep blowing this "all you have to do" nonsense out your nose. As well as your
>>>pseudo-scientific logic of "proving". You disprove it.
>>
>>do you still molest your children? you say you dont?
>>
>>disprove it.
>>
>I could, but I don't need ot. It is an unsupported claim. In our society if one
>makes an unsupported or false claim about another, they are sometimes breaking
>laws.

breaking what law? if the claim is unsupported, it's false. if its
unsupported, evidence is given tha...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:05 PM
In article <slrn9hfft2...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark

VandeWettering says...
>
>On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn9hednm...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>>On 1 Jun 2001 02:20:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You really think this is a debate, when you dodge every question
>>>>of mine, and pretend to disprove on your word alone?
>>>
>>>Irony-o-meter in the red zone!
>>>
>
>>Its just par for the course for you to imply that I pretend to
>>disprove on my word alone and/or dodge questions, yet you would
>>not dream of providing even the slightest bit of evidence of that.
>>Perhaps you would like to start with this thread.
>
>I'm not implying.  I'm just stating what is apparent to anyone who
>cares to read your posts.
>
You speak for every poster I see. And I should engage in intelligent
conversation with you *why*?

>
>>>You know, if you really wanted to discuss the topic of instinct as you
>>>claimed, you could challenge wf3h's definition of 'instinct', and present
>>>examples of human instincts.  I can think of several human behaviors
>>>which could reasonably qualify as `instincts', even though they don't
>>>require humans to act under compulsion to obey them.
>
>>What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to
>>my questions first asked in the thread "instincts." I could do many
>>things, including proceeding like you outline above. Yet before
>>this, there are more basic things I feel need to be settled, at
>>least with some posters, including wf3h. Science does not "prove",
>>science attempts to disprove. You fall silent on issues such as
>>this and interject now with an ironymeter comment, and then advise
>>me how to approach a debate. Sorry if I do not think like you do,
>>thank the Lord.
>
>I do not agree with what wf3h has said about human instincts.  But
>if you think that humans have instincts, you would do well to actually
>present some illustrative actions which could be construed as instincts,
>rather than childishly insisting that he prove a negative by proving
>there are none.
...
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 3:25 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 18:03:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <slrn9hfft2...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>I would do well *how*. Would wf3h change the way he communicates? There are
>perhaps now a half dozen responses to different posters from wf3h which all he
>does is make bold statements, and sometimes calls or implies these unsupported
>statements are facts. I have no reason to think that if I had referred to a
>human instinct, his responses to me would have been any different.

you yourself proved yourself wrong. when i asked you if i accused you
of being a child molester, is it up to me to prove it, or you to
disprove it. you said UNSUBSTANTIATED claims are actionable offenses.
what is UNSUBSTANTIATED? it is a claim not supported by evidence. you
made a claim: humans have instincts. that is unsubstantiated since
you've offered NO evidence in its support. by your OWN criteria, your
argument is false.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 3:30 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 17:26:26 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b17896b...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>
>>>>
>>right. because thats how science works: you bring evidence to support
>>your claim, otherwise anyone could say anything.
>>
>Another claim? If evidence(sufficient for you I suppose) is not used to support
>a theory, then you could (scientifically) say anything. Sure, wf3h. Just say
>anything.

you molest children.

now go disprove it.

>>
>>i could say your
>>molest your children and its up to you to disprove it. we dont waste
>>the effort to test a statement with no evidence.
>>
>In science, you are most likely right.

and you've offered NO supporting evidence humans have instincts. none.

 In law, if you accuse another with an
>unsupported claim(accusation) you are required to provide evidence.

your claim about humans is unsubstantiated.


 In law, we
>are innocent(correct) until proven guilty(wrong). In science, a claim is
>guilty(wrong) until proven innocent(right).

and your claim that humans have instincts is wrong until proven
innocent. them's YOUR words, not mine.

 This is why there are things called
>unsupported theory, untested theory. Science proposes possible explanations(and
>does NOT assume they are the right ones) and then tries to disprove those
>explanations. You have not disproved my claim. You dodge this every time. You
>are a liar.

now you're arguing against yourself. above you said a claim is WRONG
until proven right. you seem to exempt yourself from this, however.
you argue against yourself often?

>>
>>you're still dodging the question
>>
>And you have disproved my claim?
]
no, you disproved it as ab...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:50 PM
In article <20010601171718.18611.00004974@ng-mq1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>
>
>That is why the rules about negative claims  were established. The person
>making a negative claim simply has to wait to be demonstrated to be wrong. The
>person making a positive claim simply has to support it with evidence.
>
Since this is a positive statement, support it with evidence.
>
You are effectively saying that I could submit a journal article simply stating
that archy is not a transitional, and would need no supporting evidence. Do you
have an address where I might submit? I'll tell them that Gyudon says there are
rules about negative claims.

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:55 PM
In article <3b18096f...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...>breaking what law? if the claim is uns...
Evidence muju51 6/1/01 3:55 PM
In article <20010601173009.18611.00004980@ng-mq1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <3b1788bb...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 1 Jun 2001 03:00:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What I really wanted to do, VanDeWettering, is to find answers to my
>>questions
>>>>first asked in the thread "instincts." I could do many things, including
>>>>proceeding like you outline above. Yet before this, there are more basic
>>things
>>>>I feel need to be settled, at least with some posters, including wf3h.
>>Science
>>>>does not "prove", science attempts to disprove. You fall silent on issues
>>such
>>>>as this and interject now with an ironymeter comment, and then advise me
>>how to
>>>>approach a debate. Sorry if I do not think like you do, thank the Lord.
>>>
>>>'disprove' means to subject to test.
>
>That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...
>
You really should keep on focus. There is no proving in science. O...
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/1/01 4:00 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:15:51 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 18:49:01 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>>>wrote:


>>>snip>
>>>>
>>>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>>>a "rock pusher".
>>>>
>>>
>>>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>>>pushing as a change in free energy.
>>
>>Then the sun is a rock pusher.  It increases free energy.
>>
>
>I meant a change in the positive direction.

An increase in free energy is in the positive direction.  Do you think
"increase" really means "decrease"?

>
>>> It requires energy from an
>>>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy
>>
>>You don't understand thermodynamics.  Entropy and free energy are not
>>the same.  Entropy is a measure of the amount of NON-free energy.
>>
>
>okay, I accept that.

>
>>>in the system upon
>>>which the work is being done.  I don't think that sunlight would
>>>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>>>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>>>positive free energy.
>>
>>No, it would not decrease the entropy of that sort of system.  But it
>>would increase the free energy.
>>
>
>is my sloppyspeak in the way again?

>
>>>
>>>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>>>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>>>surface.
>>
>>OK, you're wrong.   Vitamin D synthesis is triggered and powered by
>>sunlight.
>>
>
>I meant reactions in the reproductive system, actually.

Then why didn't you say so?  And why did you mean only reactions in
the reproductive system?  Why not in the digestive system or in the
skin or in they lymphatric system or ...?

>
>>>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>>>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>>>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>>>sunlight here.   This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.
>>
>>I'll withhold comment until you define "spontaneous".  Your messages
>>make it clear the you are using it in some unusual sense.
>
>"spontaneous" refers to those reactions that occur without the aid of
>positive free energy.  Is there a better way to express that?

Yes, although since I don't understand what you mean .  There ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 4:05 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 18:49:02 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <20010601171718.18611.00004974@ng-mq1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>
>>That is why the rules about negative claims  were established. The person
>>making a negative claim simply has to wait to be demonstrated to be wrong. The
>>person making a positive claim simply has to support it with evidence.
>>
>Since this is a positive statement, support it with evidence.
>>
>You are effectively saying that I could submit a journal article simply stating
>that archy is not a transitional, and would need no supporting evidence.

you would be reacting to someone who previously said archy WAS
transitional.

again...you're a child molester. do i have to prove it, or do you have
to disprove it?

 Do you
>have an address where I might submit? I'll tell them that Gyudon says there are
>rules about negative claims.
>

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 4:05 PM

>>breaking what law? if the claim is unsupported, it'...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 4:10 PM
In article <3b181506...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 18:03:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <slrn9hfft2...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>I would do well *how*. Would wf3h change the way he communicates? There are
>>perhaps now a half dozen responses to different posters from wf3h which all he
>>does is make bold statements, and sometimes calls or implies these unsupported
>>statements are facts. I have no reason to think that if I had referred to a
>>human instinct, his responses to me would have been any different.
>
>you yourself proved yourself wrong. when i asked you if i accused you
>of being a child molester, is it up to me to prove it, or you to
>disprove it. you said UNSUBSTANTIATED claims are actionable offenses.
>
In law, wf3h. Unsupported claims in science are simply unsupported, and not
accepted. In society, when you make a claim, you are under obligation to have...
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/1/01 4:20 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:27:17 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 12:13:41 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
<snip>
>>Actually, that's mostly testimony for the existence of Jesus. For the existence
>>of the Divine Watchmaker itself,
>
>Jesus and the Divine Watchmaker are one and the same.
>
>>you'll need something empirical, since you
>>can't have any reliable witnesses.
>>
>
>what is your standard for reliability in a witness?

It is extremely unlikely that there _is_ such a thing as a human
reliable witness.  As I pointed out in another message, people in
general are terrible witnesses.

However, in order for there to be a chance that a person is a reliable
witness:

1.  There should be no possible reason why that person would care
about the contents of the story that they are telling; they should be
a dispassionate observer with nothing at stake in the outcome.

2.  There should be some independent corroboration significant
portions of that person's (or persons', if there are multiple
witnes...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/1/01 4:25 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 00:30:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 18:53:12 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>


>>On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>The testimony of reliable
>>
>>You're going to have to justify your use of the word "reliable".  
>
>when a witness is reliable, his story gets believed and passed on to
>other reliable witnesses.

Ridiculous. That would make Hitler one of the most reliable witnesses
to events of the 2oth century.

>The fact that the story of Jesus is still
>with us is evidence of the reliability of the first witnesses.

No.

>Do you
>see any followers of Zeus around today, or followers of any of the
>other false gods of literature?  

Yes.

>
>>What
>>evidence do you have that these witnesses were reliable?  Did they
>>have any reasons for slanting their accounts, such as trying to
>>justify their choices, or trying to convince others of the correc...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 4:35 PM
In article <3b18157b...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 17:26:26 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> In law, we
>>are innocent(correct) until proven guilty(wrong). In science, a claim is
>>guilty(wrong) until proven innocent(right).
>
>and your claim that humans have instincts is wrong until proven
>innocent. them's YOUR words, not mine.
>
And you equate "wrong" in this analogy to *disproven*.
>
> This is why there are things called
>>unsupported theory, untested theory. Science proposes possible explanations(and
>>does NOT assume they are the right ones) and then tries to disprove those
>>explanations. You have not disproved my claim. You dodge this every time. You
>>are a liar.
>
>now you're arguing against yourself. above you said a claim is WRONG
>until proven right. you seem to exempt yourself from this, however.
>you argue against yourself often?
>
You really do have a problem understanding scientific method, dont you. A...
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:05 PM

>In law, wf3h. Unsupported claims in science are simply unsupported...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:20 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 19:30:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b18157b...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 17:26:26 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> In law, we
>>>are innocent(correct) until proven guilty(wrong). In science, a claim is
>>>guilty(wrong) until proven innocent(right).
>>
>>and your claim that humans have instincts is wrong until proven
>>innocent. them's YOUR words, not mine.
>>
>And you equate "wrong" in this analogy to *disproven*.

you hung your whole argument on the existence of instincts in all
animals. prove it. you havent.

>>
>> This is why there are things called
>>>unsupported theory, untested theory. Science proposes possible explanations(and
>>>does NOT assume they are the right ones) and then tries to disprove those
>>>explanations. You have not disproved my claim. You dodge this every time. You
>>>are a liar.
>>
>>now you're arguing against yourself. above you said a claim is WRONG
>>unt...

Evidence Anders Lindman 6/1/01 5:41 PM
In article <5iUR6.1226$v4.5...@www.newsranger.com>, newbie says...
>I would do well *how*. Would wf3h change the way he communicates? There are
>perhaps now a half dozen responses to different posters from wf3h which all he
>does is make bold statements, and sometimes calls or implies these unsupported
>statements are facts. I have no reason to think that if I had referred to a
>human instinct, his responses to me would have been any different.
>>
>What is this "negative" thing? Curious you take this track. IF my original claim
>had been that humans do not have instincts, would you foolishly be advising me
>now to present some illustrations to support this claim? To "prove" a negative...
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 5:41 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
<Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.

i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is. its not
a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
stimulus. thats what's got folks confused is the 'behavior' part. when
an animal does a mating dance, thats an instinct. plotting a
creationist's demise, while a worthwhile endeavor, isnt an instinct!

Evidence Anders Lindman 6/1/01 7:25 PM
In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

Feelings are results of programmed neurological feedbacks. They play an
important role in social instincts. The plotting you talk about is a result of a
social instinct. Almost everything we do is governed by biological and social
instincts. We have the biological instincts from the time we are born. Social
instincts are programmed into us by the society we live in. As children we learn
the "rules" of the society by obser...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/1/01 7:50 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 22:20:38 -0400, Anders Lindman
<Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
>><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.
>>
>>i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is. its not
>>a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
>>genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
>>stimulus. thats what's got folks confused is the 'behavior' part. when
>>an animal does a mating dance, thats an instinct. plotting a
>>creationist's demise, while a worthwhile endeavor, isnt an instinct!
>>
>
>Feelings are results of programmed neurological feedbacks. They play an
>important role in social instincts.

but im not sure what a 'social' instinct is, vs a well defined set of
behaviors characteristic of an instinct.

 The plotting you talk about is a result of a
>socia...

Evidence David Ewan Kahana 6/1/01 8:05 PM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2001 16:39:06 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
> VandeWettering) wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >Zoe, can you give a description of how you determine whether a given
> >chemical reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous?  Don't give us
> >an example, just tell us how we can make that determination ourselves.
> >
>
> is this the Gibbs Free Energy equation?  DeltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS.

Hi, Zoe. It's clear enough by now from your responses that you
probably are never going to be convinced by any possible logical
arguments that the temporal sequence you propose for the
development of the genetic code and the second law of
thermodynamics is not at all a logical necessity. It's not even
clear to me that it's a logical possibility. It might even turn
out to be the case that there couldn't be any direction to time
itself if there was no second law of thermodynamics. I've no
proof or argument to support the truth or falsehood of that
proposition, but the second law has turned up in some unexpected
ways in the study of black holes. You might want to read Nathan
Urban's well written and extensive summary and evaluation of the
some of the current lines of thought about quantum cosmology (see
the thread on voting for the POTM for the post).

Nevertheless because it's an interesting question to me, I've
gathered together a few thoughts on the subject. For anyone else
who might consider reading on, there's nothing here that a
hundred other people haven't said already a hundred different
ways in this thread.  It's also pretty long, but I have to do
something with this stuff. Apologies in advance.

It's probably fair to say that Gibbs wrote not just one equation,
but many equations, involving the so-called free energy which he
invented and which now bears his name,

What you've written is an equation describing the change in what
is now called the Gibbs free energy occurring in some process, in
some system, taking place apparently at constant temperature.

H = U + PV would be the enthalpy of the system in question, with
U being the internal energy and PV being the product of the
pressure and the volume of the system. H has the dimensions of
energy, but as you can see dH can include pressure times volume
work.

The important thing to remember is that the Gibbs free energy is
a thermodynamic state function, often written as:

G = U + PV - TS

T and S are temperature and entropy.

What I mean by the statement preceding the equation is that, if a
system reaches a thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium, and then
it is modified, and finally it is returned to the original
thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium state, in the sense that
all of the thermodynamic state variables are returned to the same
values that they had at the beginning of the exercise, then also
the quantity G will be found to have the same unique value that
it did at the beginning of the exercise.

Amusingly enough, this isn't the object which is first discussed
in Gibbs' major work on the subject.  Instead he is much more
explicit in what he writes and he works up to introducing this
quantity quite slowly. If you want to know what Gibbs actually
did write, it just so happens that I can tell you a little bit
about it, since I have a copy of his collected works on hand.
I'm going to anyaway, whether you want to know it or not :->

You see, Gibbs was very interested among other things in what
could be said thermodynamically about the equilibrium state of
complicated physical systems involving many many constituent
parts in which:

(1) Changes of phase were possible. (for example liquid to gas,
liquid to solid, solid to gas).

(2) Multiple different types of masses were present which might
be transformed into one another by chemical reactions.

(3) Other special conditions might exist.

I'll quote some of the discussion from one of Gibbs' original
works, "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances."
Transactions of the Conneticut Academy, III.  pp. 108-248,
Oct. 1875-May, 1876, and pp.343-524, May, 1877-July, 1878.

First Gibbs states and proves the equivalence of two formulations
of the conditions for equilibrium of a system completely isolated
from any external influences. I have altered his notation, since
Gibbs uses symbols I don't know how to reproduce in USENET.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

1. For the equilibrium of any isolated system, it is necessary
and sufficient that in all possible variations of the state of
the system, which do not alter its energy, the variation of the
entropy shall either vanish or be negative. If u denote the
energy, and s the entropy of the system, and we use a subscript
letter after a variation to indicate a quantity of which the
value is not to be varied, the condition of equilibrium may be
written:

(ds) ,u <=0

2. For the equilibrium of any isolated system it is necessary and
sufficient that in all possible variations in the state of the
system which do not alter its entropy, the variation of its
energy shall either vanish or be positive. This condition may be
written:

(du) ,s >= 0.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I have excised the proof of equivalence of these two
statements which Gibbs provides.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The equations which express the condition of equilibrium, as also
its statement in words, are to be interpreted in accordance with
the general usage in respect to differential equations, that is,
infinitesimals of higher orders than the first relatively to
those which express the amount of change of the system are to be
neglected. But to distinguish the different kinds of equilibrium
in regards to stability, we must have regard to the absolute value
of the variations. We will use D as the sign of variation in those
equations which are to be construed *strictly*, i.e., in which
infinitesimals of the higher orders are not to be neglected. With this
understanding, we may express the necessary and sufficient conditions
of the different kinds of equilibrium as follows;--for stable
equilibrium:

(Ds) ,u < 0, i.e., (Du) ,s > 0;

for neutral equilibrium there must be some variations in the
state of the system for which

(Ds) ,u = 0, i.e., (Du) ,s = 0;

while in general

(Ds) ,u <= 0, i.e., (Du) ,s >= 0;

and for unstable equilibrium there must be some variations for
which

(Ds) ,u > 0,

i.e., there must be some for which

(Du) ,s < 0,

while in general

(Ds) ,u >= 0, i.e., (Du) ,s <= 0;

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Gibbs continues with a very precise statement of what kinds of
variations are to be considered, and an extended discussion and
proof of the conditions, which you might want to read
sometime. Thermodynamics is not just a bunch of arbitrary words:
you can't just wing it and proceed without knowing any of the
mathematics or understanding what it all means.

The second section is entitled: "The Conditions of Equilibrium
for Heterogeneous Masses in Contact when Uninfluenced by Gravity,
Electricity, Distortion of the Solid Masses, or Capillary
Tension." It's here that Gibbs introduces the state function
which has come to bear his name.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In order to arrive as directly as possible at the most
characteristic and essential laws of chemical equilibrium, we
will first give consideration to a case of the simplest kind.  We
will examine the conditions of equilibrium of a mass of matter of
various kinds enclosed in a rigid and fixed envelop, which is
impermeable to and unalterable by any of the substances enclosed,
and perfectly non-conducting to heat....

It will be observed that the supposition of a rigid and non-conducting
envelop enclosing the mass under discussion involves no loss of
generality, for if any mass of matter is in equilibrium, it would
also be so, if the whole or any part of it were also enclosed in
an envelop as supposed; therefore the conditions of equilibrium for
a mass so enclosed are the general conditions which must always
be satisfied in case of equilibrium. As for the other suppositions
which have been made, all the circumstances which are here excluded
will afterward be made the subject of special discussion.

Let us first consider the energy of any homogeneous part of
the given mass, and its variation for any possible variation
in the composition and state of this part. (By homogeneous
is meant that the part in question is uniform throughout, not
only in chemical composition, but also in physical state.) If
we consider the amount and kind of matter in this homogenous
mass as fixed, its energy u is a function of the entropy s, and
its volume v, and the differentials of these quantities are subject
to the relation

du = t ds - p dv,
 
t denoting the (absolute) temperature of the mass, and p its
pressure. For t ds is the heat received, and p dv the work done
by the mass during its change of state. But if we consider the
matter in the mass as variable, and write m1, m2, m3, ..., mn
for the quantities of the various substances S1, S2, S3, ..., Sn
of which the mass is composed, u will evidently be a function
of s, v, m1, m2, m3, ..., mn, and we shall have for the complete
value of the differential of u:

du = t ds - p dv + mu1 dm1 + mu2 dm2 + mu3 dm3 + ... + mun dmn,

mu1, mu2, mu3, ... mun denoting the differential coefficients
of u taken with respect to m1, m2, m3, ..., mn.

The substances S1, S2, S3, ..., Sn, of which we consider the
mass composed must of course be such that the values of the
differentials dm1, dm2, dm3, ....

[Horn's idiocies] Re: Evidence D Marks 6/1/01 8:35 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 2001 04:42:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1aIR6.31487$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn says...
> >>
> >>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >>news:RSHR6.193$v4.3162@www.newsranger.com...
> >>> In article <SkHR6.31059$qs3.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
> >>says...
> >>>
> >>> Yes, if I or any other make a claim the CLAIM stands
> >>> unless disproven. Even if the claim is not supported by
> >>> sufficient evidence to convince the fool Horn.
> >>
> >>There is a difference between "sufficient evidence" and "no evidence."
> >>
> >TRUE.
> >>
> >>Newbie has never presented any evidence.
> >>
> >Of what. This is just a maniac screaming in the woods, folks.
> >>
> >>> Maybe Horn skipped class the day they discussed what
> >>> a CLAIM is.
> >>
> >>Once again, Newbie's colossal arrogance is his undoing.
> >>
> >In Horns demented mind.
> >>
> >>The fact is that
> >>the person making...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/1/01 8:40 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010601171718.18611.00004974@ng-mq1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>
>>That is why the rules about negative claims  were established. The person
>>making a negative claim simply has to wait to be demonstrated to be wrong.
>The
>>person making a positive claim simply has to support it with evidence.
>>
>Since this is a positive statement, support it with evidence.

The evidence is in many places on this newsgroup. Nearly every time a
creationist commits "argument by assertion", he's generally called upon to
prove it, provide evidence for it, etc., indicating that we are unwilling to
mistake mere assertion for supported argument. The correct way to disprove a
false positive assertion is to demonstrate that there is no evidence to support
it.

By contrast, when a creationist makes a negative claim such as there being no
transitional fossils, the response is usually a link to the talkorigins.org
archive of transitional fossils. The correct way to debunk a false negative
claim is to provide an example of what is claimed not to exist.

Richard Carrier of infidels.org has devoted a section of a page to this matter.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

"Consider the negative case. When it comes time to decide what to believe, if
we did not assume such "unprovables" were false, we would either have to choose
which unprovables to believe by some totally arbitrary means, which amounts to
a ridiculous "belief by whim" method, or else we have to assume that all such
statements are true. Of course, we only have to believe true those unprovables
that do not contradict other proven statements or that do not contradict each
other, but even in the latter case we have no grounds for choosing which of two
contradictory unprovables we will believe, and this is the same "belief by
whim" dilemma. But even with these provisions, this policy would result in a
great number of absurd beliefs (like "there are big green Martians in the
universe"). Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the
best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as
they are proved. In other words, *it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition
when there is no evidence.* Even if it is less certainly false than
propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that
does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them
as false so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new ev...

Evidence muju51 6/1/01 11:40 PM
In article <9f9bq...@drn.newsguy.com>, Anders Lindman says...>>now to present some illustrations to support this claim? To "prove" a negative?
>
>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts. Some of these instincts are so
>integrated in our society that we take them for granted. Take for example
>"revenge". This is a very strong social instinct.
>
I suspect revenge may be only a modification of an instinct, not an instinct per
se.
>
>Often people feel ...
Evidence newwbie 6/1/01 11:45 PM
In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>
>On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.
>
>i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is.
>
We should? by all means.

>
>its not
>a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
>genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
>stimulus.
>
Prove it.

>
>thats what's got folks confused is the 'behavior' part. when
>an animal does a mating dance, thats an instinct.
>
Prove it.

>
>plotting a
>creationist's demise, while a worthwhile endeavor, isnt an instinct!
>
If Anders is right about revenge being an instinct, you may be wrong there as
well.

Evidence newbie 6/2/01 12:00 AM
In article <3b1853d8...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 22:20:38 -0400, Anders Lindman
><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
>>><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.
>>>
>>>i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is. its not
>>>a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
>>>genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
>>>stimulus. thats what's got folks confused is the 'behavior' part. when
>>>an animal does a mating dance, thats an instinct. plotting a
>>>creationist's demise, while a worthwhile endeavor, isnt an instinct!
>>>
>>
>>Feelings are results of programmed neurological feedbacks. They play an
>>important role in social instincts.
>
>but im not sure what a 'social' instinct is, vs a well defined set ...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Brian O'Neill 6/2/01 1:15 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:90VR6.1295$v4.56874@www.newsranger.com...

> >>>'disprove' means to subject to test.

> >That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...

> You really should keep on focus. There is no proving in science. Only
> disproving. If something is not currently disproven, it doesnt mean it is
> "proven". That is not what science is about.

I believe that's why he put it in quotation marks, to signify that he was
using the colloquial use of the word.

You lecturing anyone on science is like the Pope lecturing in a Vegas
brothel on the proper way to put on a condom.

> [snip]

And then you snip the rest of his argument.  Seems to me that you can't
manage to prove or "prove" anything that way...

Of course it's easier to snip away stuff you can't answer.  In fact, in
homage to Horn, allow me to repost what you snipped:

[begin reposted material that Newbie snipped]

>>the test is to name a single
>>instinct in humans. so far you havent done it.

>So? Your point here is?

That you have not tested it.

>The "test" is whether you disproved my claim without providing any support
>for
>why you think humans do not have instincts.

The support is that you have not named a single human instinct. Nor does it
look like you are about to.

>You hop around all the time
>yelling
>Liar! Prove it! typical creationist! when someone makes any kind of
>statement,
>comment or claim.

Whenever someone makes a positive claim, yes.

If you claimed, for example, that living things could not survive without
mitochondria, I would counter with ba...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/2/01 1:50 AM
In article <9fa73k$rsc$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:90VR6.1295$v4.56874@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>'disprove' means to subject to test.
>
>> >That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...
>
>> You really should keep on focus. There is no proving in science. Only
>> disproving. If something is not currently disproven, it doesnt mean it is
>> "proven". That is not what science is about.
>
>I believe that's why he put it in quotation marks, to signify that he was
>using the colloquial use of the word.
>
The colloquial use, huh. Wf3h uses the word without quote marks constantly. He
is a scientist. This is the direction of the argument. Try again.

>
>You lecturing anyone on science is like the Pope lecturing in a Vegas
>brothel on the proper way to put on a condom.
>
Why thank you.

>
>> [snip]
>
>And then you snip the rest of his argument.  Seems to me that you can't
>manage to prove or "prove" anything that way...
>
You'll probably reference this later as proof. It has been attempted before.

>
>Of course it's easier to snip away stuff you can't answer.  In fact, in
>homage to Horn, allow me to repost what you snipped:
>
Its just as easy to snip away stuff you dont care to answer. But proceed.

>
>[begin reposted material that Newbie snipped]
>
>>>the test is to name a single
>>>instinct in humans. so far you havent done it.
>
>>So? Your point here is?
>
>That you have not tested it.
>
Yes, so your point is here?

>
>>The "test" is whether you disproved my claim without providing any support
>>for
>>why you think humans do not have instincts.
>
>The support is that you have not named a single human instinct. Nor does it
>look like you are about to.
>
And why exactly should I take your word for that?

>
>>You hop around all the time
>>yelling
>>Liar! Prove it! typical creationist! when someone makes any kind of
>>statement,
>>comment or claim.
>
>Whenever someone makes a positive claim, yes.
>
You are getting boring. This same exchange would be taking place if I had made a
"negative" claim.
>
>If you claimed, for example, that living things could not survive without
>mitochondria, I would counter with bacteria, which do not ...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/2/01 1:55 AM
From newbie:

>You really should keep on f...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/2/01 2:20 AM
From newbie:

>In article <9fa73k$rsc$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
>says...
>>
>>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>news:90VR6.1295$v4.56874@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>>> >>>'disprove' means to subject to test.
>>
>>> >That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...
>>
>>> You really should keep on focus. There is no proving in science. Only
>>> disproving. If something is not currently disproven, it doesnt mean it is
>>> "proven". That is not what science is about.
>>
>>I believe that's why he put it in quotation marks, to signify that he was
>>using the colloquial use of the word.

>The colloquial use, huh.

The archaic use, actually.

>Wf3h uses the word without quote marks constantly.

Unless you have reason to believe that wf3h and I are the same person, I don't
see the relevance of this factoid.

<snip>

>>And then you snip the rest of his argument.  Seems to me that you can't
>>manage to prove or "prove" anything that way...

>You'll probably reference this later as proof. It has been attempted before.

As proof of what?

>>Of course it's easier to snip away stuff you can't answer.  In fact, in
>>homage to Horn, allow me to repost what you snipped:

>Its just as easy to snip away stuff you dont care to answer. But proceed.

Ah, but if what you don't care to answer counters your claims, then...

>>[begin reposted material that Newbie snipped]
>>
>>>>the test is to name a single
>>>>instinct in humans. so far you havent done it.

>>>So? Your point here is?
>>
>>That you have not tested it.

>Yes, so your point is here?

So your assertion, which could only be considered adequately supported through
such testing, is not adequately supported.

>>>The "test" is whether you disproved my claim without providing any support
>>>for
>>>why you think humans do not have instincts.

>>The support is that you have not named a single human instinct. Nor does it
>>look like you are about to.

>And why exactly should I take your word for that?

Because my statement is correct, unless you have named a human instinct, of
which action I am not aware.

>>>You hop around all the time
>>>yelling
>>>Liar! Prove it! typical creationist! when someone makes any kind of
>>>statement,
>>>comment or claim.

>>Whenever someone makes a positive claim, yes.

>You are getting boring. This same exchange would be taking place if I had
>made a
>"negative" claim.

No; had you made an existentially negative claim I would have pointed out
whatever exists that you claim doesn't.

>>If you claimed, for example, that living things could not survive without
>>mitochondria, I would counter with bacteria, which do not have mitochondria
>>and survive all the same, making your argument incorrect.

>Very well, assuming you gave some evidence beyond simply typing those words.

Bacteria do not have membrane-bound organelles.

>You
>have heard of "evidence"?

Ah, but here we run into existential negativity again. I claim that no bacteria
have membrane-bound organelles. If you wish to disprove that, you would have to
give us an example of a bacterium which had membrane-bound organelles.

In like manner, you really had ought to give us an example of human instincts.

>>You could make your argument correct again by demonstrating that all
>>bacteria
>>do, in fact, have mitochondria.

>"Correct"? Sorry, an argument is not correct simply by demonstrating
>something.

I don't follow. What do you think the expression QED stands for?

Certainly not just any something will satisfy, but if I demonstrate that what
the statement states is actually true, then how can the statement not be
correct?

>It may support the claim(argument) but does not "prove" the claim, or mean
>that
>the claim...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Brian O'Neill 6/2/01 3:00 AM
Thank you, Newbie!  I have a new Sig for this group now...

-Brian

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, three days, 7 hours, 54 minutes and 25
seconds.
16773 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,096.65.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 45 minutes.

See my Sig File FAQ:  http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm

"I never said that my argument was correct." - Newbie (6/2/2001)


Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/2/01 3:35 AM
In article <20010602051804.12810.00000168@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>
[snip]
>
>But it's a damn sight better than hopping up and down and demanding to be
>proven wrong before taking any steps to provide evidence that one is right.
>
And on that "demanding" note, I leave you with the same evidence you give here.
>
[snip]

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/2/01 3:40 AM
In article <9fadaa$4gra$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...

>
>Thank you, Newbie!  I have a new Sig for this group now...
>
You're welcome. Maybe one day your reading comprehension will improve.
Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 7:05 AM
On 1 Jun 2001 15:10:51 -0400, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
Jr.) wrote:

snip>
>
>You seem to have a personal definition of "spontaneous."  Mind sharing
>it with us?  It would seem to me that "spontaneous" to you seems to
>mean anything that has happened since the big-bang, or will happen
>before the "heat death" of the universe.
>

that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.  

And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
already innate in the structure of the molecule, and because of how
they are shaped, the molecules will tend to hook up into arrangements
that are predictable and stable.  Therefore, crystals are low-entropy
states, but they are also low-energy states as a given.  This is not
the kind of nonspontaneity I mean.  

And from what I'm understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) you can
determine the di...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 7:20 AM
On 31 May 2001 23:48:36 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 23:21:03 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 31 May 2001 16:39:06 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>>VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>>>Zoe, can you give a description of how you determine whether a given
>>>chemical reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous?  Don't give us
>>>an example, just tell us how we can make that determination ourselves.
>
>>is this the Gibbs Free Energy equation?  
>
>I don't know.  You are supposed to be telling me, it is your theory.
>
>>DeltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS.
>>Translating (stay put, beret), Gibbs is the man who theorized about
>>the potential energy of a chemical reaction of a substance or system.
>>DeltaG is the change in GFE, and that change is equal to the change in
>>enthalpy (deltaH) minus the product of the temperature and the change
>>in entropy (deltaS).
>>
>>Or, put more simply:  deltaG represents the energy...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 7:40 AM
On 2 Jun 2001 10:02:06 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 15:10:51 -0400, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
>Jr.) wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>You seem to have a personal definition of "spontaneous."  Mind sharing
>>it with us?  It would seem to me that "spontaneous" to you seems to
>>mean anything that has happened since the big-bang, or will happen
>>before the "heat death" of the universe.
>>
>
>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.

Ah.  Now I understand what you mean by "spontaneous".  Sadly, your
definition is meaningless.   See David Kahana's post on Gibbs free
energy in this thread.  It will take some study and effort to
understand, but the explanation is there.

>
>And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
>already innate in the structure of the molecule, and because of how
>they are shaped, the molecules ...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 7:45 AM
On 2 Jun 2001 10:16:49 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>>>Or, put more simply:  deltaG represents the energy available for doing
>>>work; deltaH is the total energy available, an...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/2/01 9:14 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b18f1a9.6130927@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
[snip].
>
> And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
> saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
> presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
> reactions.

For the nth time: the genetic code is not a reaction. It is a code.
regards
leo

> --
> zoe
>


Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/2/01 9:35 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Gf3S6.1736$v4.74976@www.newsranger.com...

In short, Newbie runs.


Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/2/01 9:35 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:7J1S6.1708$v4.74735@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <9fa73k$rsc$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...
> >
> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:90VR6.1295$v4.56874@www.newsranger.com...
> >
> >> >>>'disprove' means to subject to test.
> >
> >> >That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...
> >
> >> You really should keep on focus. There is no proving
> >> in science. Only disproving. If something is not currently
> >> disproven, it doesnt mean it is "proven". That is not
> >> what science is about.
> >
> >I believe that's why he put it in quotation marks, to signify
> >that he was using the colloquial use of the word.
>
> The colloquial use, huh. Wf3h uses the word without quote
> marks constantly. He is a scientist. This is the direction of
> the argument. Try again.

With Newbie, there's little point to "try again."  After all, this is the
same Newbie who can't read very well, doesn't support his claims and runs
from challenges.  If one does "try again," Newbie runs.  That's what Newbie
does.

> >You lecturing anyone on science is like the Pope lecturing
> >in a Vegas brothel on the proper way to put on a condom.
> >
> Why thank you.

That whooshing sounds is the point sailing way over Newbie's pointy little
head.

> >> [snip]
> >
> >And then you snip the rest of his argument.  Seems t...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/2/01 9:40 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:lj3S6.1738$v4.74856@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <9fadaa$4gra$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...
>
> >Thank you, Newbie!  I have a new Sig for this group now...
>
> You're welcome. Maybe one day your reading comprehension
> will improve.

The operative phrase often used by talk.origins denizens to such a statement
is often, um...

"Pot-kettle-black."

Can Newbie explain how he could read a series of statements of mine that
identify a chapter in a book and then come away claiming that those
statements lead him to the impression that there was no such chapter?

How can Newbie whine so incessantly that I have been constantly questioning
him about "bird flight" when, in fact, the questions had to do with the laws
of matter that life allegedly fails to obey and bird flight was only an
infrequent example?

[Snip]

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/2/01 11:35 AM
From Zoe Althrop:

>>>Or, put more simply:  deltaG represents the energy available for doing
>>>work; deltaH is the total energy available, and temperature times
>>>change in entropy is the energy not available for doing work.  
>>>
>>>Therefore, when change in free energy is negative, I would call that
>>>reaction spontaneous.  Wh...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/2/01 11:35 AM
From Zoe Althrop:


>On 1 Jun 2001 15:10:51 -0400, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
>Jr.) wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>You seem to have a personal definition of "spontaneous."  Mind sharing
>>it with us?  It would seem to me that "spontaneous" to you seems to
>>mean anything that has happened since the big-bang, or will happen
>>before the "heat death" of the universe.

>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.  

Define abnormal.

>And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
>already innate in the structure of the molecule, and because of how
>they are shaped, the molecules will tend to hook up into arrangements
>that are predictable and stable.  Therefore, crystals are low-entropy
>states, but they are also low-energy states as a given.  This is not
>the kind of nonspontaneity I mean.  

DNA is a crystal, you know. ...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/2/01 11:45 AM
From newbie:

Ah, but I made an existentially negative claim. The less evidence there is of
what I claim does not exist, the better.

You on the other hand made an existentially positive claim. The support for
your claim actually goes down the less evidence you give.

I do hope you don't mind restoring the snip. It contains some matter I'm sure
we'd like to see you address. Especially the part about how your argument
suddenly changed from instincts being necessary for life to instincts being
necessary for animal life.

From newbie:

>In article <9fa73k$rsc$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
>says...
>>


>>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>news:90VR6.1295$v4.56874@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>>> >>>'disprove' means to subject to test.
>>
>>> >That's actually what "prove" means, but anyway...
>>
>>> You really should keep on focus. There is no proving in science. Only
>>> disproving. If something is not currently disproven, it doesnt mean it is
>>> "proven". That is not what science is about.
>>
>>I believe that's why he put it in quotation marks, to signify that he was
>>using the colloquial use of the word.

>The colloquial use, huh.

The archaic use, actually.

>Wf3h uses the word without quote marks constantly.

Unless you have reason to believe that wf3h and I are the same person, I don't


see the relevance of this factoid.

<snip>

>>And then you snip the rest of his argument.  Seems to me that you can't

As proof of what?

>>You could make your argument correct again by demonstratin...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 12:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 10:16:49 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here


>saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
>presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
>reactions.
>
>--
>zoe
>
since the universe is older than life, and since we know the SLOT was
present at the beginning, zoe is deeply confused. her only out is to
say that, magically, we cant determine what the state of the universe
was 300,000 yrs after the big bang. however, since we can, she's
lying.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 12:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 10:02:06 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 15:10:51 -0400, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie


>Jr.) wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>You seem to have a personal definition of "spontaneous."  Mind sharing
>>it with us?  It would seem to me that "spontaneous" to you seems to
>>mean anything that has happened since the big-bang, or will happen
>>before the "heat death" of the universe.
>>
>
>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.  
>
>And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
>already innate in the structure of the molecule, and because of how
>they are shaped, the molecules will tend to hook up into arrangements
>that are predictable and stable.  Therefore, crystals are low-entropy
>states, but they are also low-energy states as a given.  This is not
>the kind of nonspontane...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 12:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 02:59:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1853d8...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>i disagree. most of what we do is learned. thats one thing which
>>differentiates us from other animals.
>>
>And you are not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?

see the word 'most' there? creationists, being literalists, are blind
to language.

>>
>>We have the biological instincts from the time we are born. Social
>>>instincts are programmed into us by the society we live in.
>>
>>and thats a different use of the term 'instinct'.
>>
>Anders comment could be taken to mean the "society" that man has created during
>evolution. Unless you think Anders thinks that we can program our genes during
>our lifetimes, to genetically program ourselves.

so, somehow our genes anticipated the development of society, and
developed instincts which preceded it?

neat trick!
>>
>>a biological
>>instinct, the product of evolution, occurs i...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 12:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 02:41:42 -0400, newwbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
>><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.
>>
>>i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is.
>>
>We should? by all means.
>>
>>its not
>>a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
>>genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
>>stimulus.
>>
>Prove it.

>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to action
>  that is common to all members of a given species of the same sex and is
>  generally based on a biological need.

from: http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/5/2/7/5/5275400.html

>>
>>thats what's got folks confused is the 'behavior' part. when
>>an animal does a mating dance, thats an instinct.
>>
>Prove it.

see above.

now, go prove humans have i...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/2/01 12:30 PM
In article <20010602144007.11909.00000881@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010602051804.12810.00000168@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>But it's a damn sight better than hopping up and down and demanding to be
>>>proven wrong before taking any steps to provide evidence that one is right.
>>>
>>And on that "demanding" note, I leave you with the same evidence you give
>>here.
>>>
>>[snip]
>
>Ah, but I made an existentially negative claim. The less evidence there is of
>what I claim does not exist, the better.
>
"Demanding" is a behavior that can be identified; and there are a finite number
of posts existing in reality that can be searched to find whether this behavior
has been demonstrated. Sound like you are choosing what claims you want to be
considered "existentially negateve".

>
>You on the other hand made an existentially positive claim. The support for
>your claim actually goes down the less evidence you give.
>
Isn't this a rather ridiculous claim? Support goes down the less evidence given?
Unless you are using "support" to mean acceptance.

>
>I do hope you don't mind restoring the snip.
>
If I "minded" it, I would not have snipped it. You can do as you please.

>
>It contains some matter I'm sure we'd like to see you address.
>
I doubt that. Yet can "we" now say "we" are demanding?
>
>Especially the part ab...
Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 12:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 10:37:35 -0400, Jon Fleming
<jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:

snip>


>Ah.  Now I understand what you mean by "spontaneous".  Sadly, your
>definition is meaningless.  

why is it meaningless?  "To understand" means to see meaning in an
explanation.  Maybe what you mean is, "ah, now I understand, but I
don't agree"?  Why don't you agree?  

>See David Kahana's post on Gibbs free
>energy in this thread.  

I did read David's post and replied to it, after which I went to
lunch.  That was at 12:30 p.m.  It is now 3:30 p.m., and I see that my
response to him did not make it through.

>It will take some study and effort to
>understand, but the explanation is there.
>

explanation for what?  Certainly not an explanation for how positive
free energy decreases entropy, which is what my thread is addressing.
It seems to me that David spent a lot of time giving, admittedly, a
very valuable explanation of entropy at equilibrium, but I'm really
interested in the modification of conditions at a level above
equilibrium.

>>
>>And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
>>already innate in the structure of the molecule, and because of how
>>they are shaped, the molecules will tend to hook up into arrangements
>>that are predictable and stable.
>
>The shape of molecules is a factor in crystallization, but only one
>factor, and shape is not a...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 12:40 PM
In article <3b193c50....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 02:59:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b1853d8...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>i disagree. most of what we do is learned. thats one thing which
>>>differentiates us from other animals.
>>>
>>And you are not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>
>see the word 'most' there? creationists, being literalists, are blind
>to language.
>
So creationists are other animals.
>
Back to business. Are humans not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
How is it possible to learn if the ability does not exist.
>
I doubt you will answer this time either, so I will throw in something that you
can respond to. All you do is make claims with no support, and yell "you
creationists, you..." Which is what you just did again.
[snip]

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 12:50 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 14:32:08 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

>From Zoe Althrop:
>
>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 15:10:51 -0400, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
>>Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>snip>
>>>
>>>You seem to have a personal definition of "spontaneous."  Mind sharing
>>>it with us?  It would seem to me that "spontaneous" to you seems to
>>>mean anything that has happened since the big-bang, or will happen
>>>before the "heat death" of the universe.
>
>>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.  
>
>Define abnormal.
>

oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.

>>And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
>>already innate in the structure of the molec...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 12:50 PM
In article <3b193cf1....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 02:41:42 -0400, newwbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
>>><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.
>>>
>>>i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is.
>>>
>>We should? by all means.
>>>
>>>its not
>>>a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
>>>genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
>>>stimulus.
>>>
>>Prove it.
>
Your proof if a definition from a dictionary????? Sure you are not a janitor?

>
>>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to action
>>  that is common to all members of a given species of the same sex and is
>>  generally based on a biological need.
>
>from: http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/5/2/7/5/527540...
Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 12:55 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 10:41:14 -0400, Jon Fleming
<jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 10:16:49 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
snip>
>>I'm thinking that all chemical reactions are spontaneous, sooner or
>>later.  But there are some reactions that will not begin spontaneously
>>unless a system is in place that drives the chemicals into their
>>spontaneous reactions -- thermionic coupling, according to Gyudon.  

>>
>>And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
>>saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
>>presence of entropy.
>
>The genetic _code_ is not something that is amenable to analysis by
>thermodynamics.  You may be confusing the genetic code with the
>structure of DNA; you've done that before.
>

if you'd reread the above.  I am saying, "the SYSTEM of the genetic
code," meaning, the system of which the genetic code is a part.  Maybe
I should instead say, the replication system?

>> It is an examp...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/2/01 1:00 PM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 2 Jun 2001 14:32:08 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>>From Zoe Althrop:
>>
>>
>>>On 1 Jun 2001 15:10:51 -0400, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
>>>Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>>snip>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to have a personal definition of "spontaneous."  Mind sharing
>>>>it with us?  It would seem to me that "spontaneous" to you seems to
>>>>mean anything that has happened since the big-bang, or will happen
>>>>before the "heat death" of the universe.
>>
>>>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>>>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>>>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.  
>>
>>Define abnormal.

>oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.

So you mean "spontaneous"? Or perhaps "not thermionically coupled"?

>It is
>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
>like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
>must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
>two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.

The which reasons overlook the possibility of thermionic coupling and are
therefore built on a mistaken premise.

>>>And, no, "abnormal" does not apply to crystals, here.  The crystal is
>>>already innate in the structure of the molecule, and because of how
>>>they are shaped, the molecules will tend to hook up into arrangements
>>>that are predictable and stab...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 1:00 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 11:58:31 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

habits are hard to shake -- I really must become more precise in my
language, at least here on T.O.

I meant that the SYSTEM of replication that contains the genetic code


is an example of nonspontaneous chemical reactions.

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 1:13 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 14:34:09 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

>From Zoe Althrop:


snip>
>>
>>I'm thinking that all chemical reactions are spontaneous, sooner or
>>later.  But there are some reactions that will not begin spontaneously
>>unless a system is in place that drives the chemicals into their
>>spontaneous reactions -- thermionic coupling, according to Gyudon.  
>
>Correct.

>
>>And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
>>saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
>>presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
>>reactions.
>
>Do you listen to *anything* anyone ever tells you? Thermionic coupling is used
>to drive nonspontaneous reactions,

hey, you're changing on me now.  Up there you said I was correct when
I said that a system has to be in place in order to drive chemicals
into their spontaneous reactions.  Now you're saying the opposite,
that spontaneous reactions are used to drive nonspontaneous reac...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/2/01 1:13 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010602144007.11909.00000881@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From newbie:
>>
>>>In article <20010602051804.12810.00000168@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>But it's a damn sight better than hopping up and down and demanding to be
>>>>proven wrong before taking any steps to provide evidence that one is
>right.
>>>>
>>>And on that "demanding" note, I leave you with the same evidence you give
>>>here.
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>Ah, but I made an existentially negative claim. The less evidence there is
>of
>>what I claim does not exist, the better.

>"Demanding" is a behavior that can be identified; and there are a finite
>number
>of posts existing in reality that can be searched to find whether this
>behavior
>has been demonstrated. Sound like you are choosing what claims you want to be
>considered "existentially negateve".

Yes, because the ones that are existentially negative fit the form "X does not
exist." Negative claims such as "X is not true" don't make the cut.

>>You on the other hand made an existentially positive claim. The support for
>>your claim actually goes down the less evidence you give.

>Isn't this a rather ridiculous claim?
Not really. If you claim that something does exist, surely even you can see
that your claim will be bolstered simply by providing examples of what you
claim to exist.

>Support goes down the less evidence
>given?

Yes. Less evidence is less support.

>Unless you are using "support" to mean acceptance.

Nope, just support.

>>I do hope you don't mind restoring the snip.

>If I "minded" it, I would not have snipped it. You can do as you please.

Well, I suppose I could have expected no better.

>>It contains some matter I'm sure we'd like to see you address.

>I doubt that.

You doubt that it contains matter, you doubt we'd like you to address it, or
you doubt that I'm sure about it?

>Yet can "we" now say "we" are demanding?

No, we are just very itnerested in hearing it. Don't let us down like you have
so often in the past with your dismissive snips.

>>Especially the part about how your argument
>>suddenly changed from instincts being necessary for life to ...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/2/01 1:30 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b19445a.27303751@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

Your problem is not a matter of precision of language, it is sheer ignorance
about what you are talking about.

Listen for the n+1th time:...

Evidence George Acton 6/2/01 1:55 PM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 2 Jun 2001 14:32:08 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
> >From Zoe Althrop:
>
> >
> >>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
> >>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
> >>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.
> >
> >Define abnormal.
> >
>
> oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
> abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
> for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
> entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
> like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
> must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
> two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.
>
You seem to be operating on a syllogism that goes:

    If we cannot demonstrate Divine violation of standard physical
      laws, then God does not exist.

    The origin of ...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/2/01 2:05 PM
In article <20010602160445.11896.00000297@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010602144007.11909.00000881@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>From newbie:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010602051804.12810.00000168@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>But it's a damn sight better than hopping up and down and demanding to be
>>>>>proven wrong before taking any steps to provide evidence that one is
>>right.
>>>>>
>>>>And on that "demanding" note, I leave you with the same evidence you give
>>>>here.
>>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Ah, but I made an existentially negative claim. The less evidence there is
>>of
>>>what I claim does not exist, the better.
>
>>"Demanding" is a behavior that can be identified; and there are a finite
>>number
>>of posts existing in reality that can be searched to find whether this
>>behavior
>>has been demonstrated. Sound like you are choosing what claims you want to be
>>considered "existentially negateve".
>
>Yes, because the ones that are existentially negative fit the form "X does not
>exist." Negative claims such as "X is not true" don't make the cut.
>
All this existential talk about something that DOES exist.

>
>>>You on the other hand made an existentially positive claim. The support for
>>>your claim actually goes down the less evidence you give.
>
>>Isn't this a rather ridiculous claim?
>Not really. If you claim that something does exist, surely even you can see
>that your claim will be bolstered simply by providing examples of what you
>claim to exist.
>
Milk does not exist in honey. Does that mean that my Honey-O's breakfast in the
morning does not contain milk?

>
>>Support goes down the less evidence
>>given?
>
>Yes. Less evidence is less support.
>
Good convincing evidence is strong support by itself. You differentiate quality
and quanity. This is not necessarily correct in all situations.

>
>>Unless you are using "support" to mean acceptance.
>
>Nope, just support.
>
Whew. Thought you might be going colloquial on me again.

>
>>>I do hope you don't mind restoring the snip.
>
>>If I "minded" it, I would not have snipped it. You can do as you please.
>
>Well, I suppose I could have expected no better.
>
Now you recognize "quality?"

>
>>>It contains some matter I'm sure we'd like to see you address.
>
>>I doubt that.
>
>You doubt that it contains matter, you doubt we'd like you to address it, or
>you doubt that I'm sure about it?
>
I doubt "we" exists.

>
>>Yet can "we" now say "we" are demanding?
>
>No, we are just very itnerested in hearing it. Don't let us down like you have
>so often in the past with your dismissive snips.
>
Interested in hearing what? Confirmation of your accusations?
>
>>>Especially the part about how your argument
>>>suddenly changed from instincts being necessary for life to instincts being
>>>necessary for animal life.
>
>>Why, Gyudon. I am proud of you. You maintain your reputation of
>>misrepresentation admirably.
>
>The argument did mutate.
>
Ah, colloquiality. The "argument" went off a side branch. Get your evolutionary
terms correct.
>
>>Thanks for allowing readers to believe that I "changed" my argument. Sure, it
>>would have been nice had you had any statements from me actually stating that
>>I
>>changed my argument,
>
>Oh, but if you actually made the change obvious, it wouldn't have the quality
>of movage of the goalposts that characterizes so many creationist ...
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 2:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:47:48 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>>
>
>oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
>like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
>must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
>two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.

the genetic code operates today in the face of the SLOT. in addition,
we know the SLOT has been functioning since the universe formed.

thus your argument is wrong.

>

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 2:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 16:07:24 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>into their spontaneous reactions...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 2:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:39:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b193c50....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 2 Jun 2001 02:59:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b1853d8...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i disagree. most of what we do is learned. thats one thing which
>>>>differentiates us from other animals.
>>>>
>>>And you are not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>>
>>see the word 'most' there? creationists, being literalists, are blind
>>to language.
>>
>So creationists are other animals.
>>
>Back to business. Are humans not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>How is it possible to learn if the ability does not exist.

that is not an instinct. it is not a sequence of well defined
behaviors. how learning is like a mating dance is something you dont
define. more creationist handwaving.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 2:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

wrong. since the chemical reactions are driven by the sun, and the sun
is undergoing a massive entropy increase, your analysis is done on an
energy balance which excludes t...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 2:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:49:49 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b193cf1....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 2 Jun 2001 02:41:42 -0400, newwbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b1834aa...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>On 1 Jun 2001 20:26:04 -0400, Anders Lindman
>>>><Anders...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of what we humans do is based on instincts.
>>>>
>>>>i think we should be a bit more clear on what an instinct is.
>>>>
>>>We should? by all means.
>>>>
>>>>its not
>>>>a feeling. its not a motivation. its a specifically defined,
>>>>genetically programmed series of behaviors in response to an external
>>>>stimulus.
>>>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>Your proof if a definition from a dictionary????? Sure you are not a janitor?

uh, its a science dictionary. while its not perfect, its a little bit
better than the average dictionary.

>>
>>>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to ac...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 2:35 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 23:03:52 -0400, David Ewan Kahana
<kah...@sprintmail.com> wrote:

I'm doing a repost here since the first post did not go through.  

>
>Hi, Zoe. It's clear enough by now from your responses that you
>probably are never going to be convinced by any possible logical
>arguments that the temporal sequence you propose for the
>development of the genetic code and the second law of
>thermodynamics is not at all a logical necessity. It's not even
>clear to me that it's a logical possibility. It might even turn
>out to be the case that there couldn't be any direction to time
>itself if there was no second law of thermodynamics.

interesting thought!  I've been wondering about that -- if maybe it is
the 2LoT that is causing our perception of time to be what it is.
Time, without 2LoT, would be eternity, wouldn't it?  I mean, the
passage of time would have no meaning if there is no deterioration to
mark its passage.  You could still divide up time into segments of
weeks, months, and years, but this would be for other conveniences
rather than to chart how much "time" went before or how much time we
have left to live.

> I've no
>proof or argument to support the truth or falsehood of that
>proposition, but the second law has turned up in some unexpected
>ways in the study of black holes.

they've found the existence of 2LoT in black holes?  Or they have
incorporated 2LoT into their theory of black holes?

>You might want to read Nathan
>Urban's well written and extensive summary and evaluation of the
>some of the current lines of thought about quantum cosmology (see
>the thread on voting for the POTM for the post).
>

read it, and found it to be very informative, yes.  I ought to go over
there and vote for it as POTM, considering that it is broad in its
scope and is not strongly pushing any particular pet agenda.

one off-topic question:  what causes spin?  And why doesn't the law of
physics demonstrate "maintained spin" as a result of explosions here
on Earth?

>Nevertheless because it's an interesting question to me, I've
>gathered together a few thoughts on the subject. For anyone else
>who might consider reading on, there's nothing here that a
>hundred other people haven't said already a hundred different
>ways in this thread.  It's also pretty long, but I have to do
>something with this stuff. Apologies in advance.
>
>It's probably fair to say that Gibbs wrote not just one equation,
>but many equations, involving the so-called free energy which he
>invented and which now bears his name,
>
>What you've written is an equation describing the change in what
>is now called the Gibbs free energy occurring in some process, in
>some system, taking place apparently at constant temperature.
>
>H = U + PV would be the enthalpy of the system in question, with
>U being the internal energy and PV being the product of the
>pressure and the volume of the system. H has the dimensions of
>energy, but as you can see dH can include pressure times volume
>work.
>
>The important thing to remember is that the Gibbs free energy is
>a thermodynamic state function, often written as:
>
>G = U + PV - TS
>
>T and S are temperature and entropy.
>
>What I mean by the statement preceding the equation is that, if a
>system reaches a thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium, and then
>it is modified, and finally it is returned to the original
>thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium state, in the sense that
>all of the thermodynamic state variables are returned to the same
>values that they had at the beginning of the exercise, then also
>the quantity G will be found to have the same unique value that
>it did at the beginning of the exercise.
>

yes, and it is the modification period that interests me.

>Amusingly enough, this isn't the object which is first discussed
>in Gibbs' major work on the subject.  Instead he is much more
>explicit in what he writes and he works up to introducing this
>quantity quite slowly. If you want to know what Gibbs actually
>did write, it just so happens that I can tell you a little bit
>about it, since I have a copy of his collected works on hand.
>I'm going to anyaway, whether you want to know it or not :->
>

great!  Such admirable confidence.

>You see, Gibbs was very interested among other things in what
>could be said thermodynamically about the equilibrium state of
>complicated physical systems involving many many constituent
>parts in which:
>
>(1) Changes of phase were possible. (for example liquid to gas,
>liquid to solid, solid to gas).
>
>(2) Multiple different types of masses were present which might
>be transformed into one another by chemical reactions.
>
>(3) Other special conditions might exist.
>
>I'll quote some of the discussion from one of Gibbs' original
>works, "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances."
>Transactions of the Conneticut Academy, III.  pp. 108-248,
>Oct. 1875-May, 1876, and pp.343-524, May, 1877-July, 1878.
>
>First Gibbs states and proves the equivalence of two formulations
>of the conditions for equilibrium of a system completely isolated
>from any external influences. I have altered his notation, since
>Gibbs uses symbols I don't know how to reproduce in USENET.
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>1. For the equilibrium of any isolated system, it is necessary
>and sufficient that in all possible variations of the state of
>the system, which do not alter its energy, the variation of the
>entropy shall either vanish or be negative. If u denote the
>energy, and s the entropy of the system, and we use a subscript
>letter after a variation to indicate a quantity of which the
>value is not to be varied, the condition of equilibrium may be
>written:
>
>(ds) ,u <=0
>
>2. For the equilibrium of any isolated system it is necessary and
>sufficient that in all possible variations in the state of the
>system which do not alter its entropy, the variation of its
>energy shall either vanish or be positive. This condition may be
>written:
>
>(du) ,s >= 0.
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>I have excised the proof of equivalence of these two
>statements which Gibbs provides.
>

sokay.  I probably wouldn't follow it very well, anyway.


>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>The equations which express the condition of equilibrium, as also
>its statement in words, are to be interpreted in accordance with
>the general usage in respect to differential equations, that is,
>infinitesimals of higher orders than the first relatively to
>those which express the amount of change of the system are to be
>neglected. But to distinguish the different kinds of equilibrium
>in regards to stability, we must have regard to the absolute value
>of the variations. We will use D as the sign of variation in those
>equations which are to be construed *strictly*, i.e., in which
>infinitesimals of the higher orders are not to be neglected. With this
>understanding, we may express the necessary and sufficient conditions
>of the different kinds of equilibrium as follows;--for stable
>equilibrium:
>
>(Ds) ,u < 0, i.e., (Du) ,s > 0;
>
>for neutral equilibrium there must be some variations in the
>state of the system for which
>
>(Ds) ,u = 0, i.e., (Du) ,s = 0;
>
>while in general
>
>(Ds) ,u <= 0, i.e., (Du) ,s >= 0;
>
>and for unstable equilibrium there must be some variations for
>which
>
>(Ds) ,u > 0,
>
>i.e., there must be some for which
>
>(Du) ,s < 0,
>
>while in general
>
>(Ds) ,u >= 0, i.e., (Du) ,s <= 0;
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>

struggling to keep up here...


>Gibbs continues with a very precise statement of what kinds of
>variations are to be considered, and an extended discussion and
>proof of the conditions, which you might want to read
>sometime. Thermodynamics is not just a bunch of arbitrary words:
>you can't just wing it and proceed without knowing any of the
>mathematics or understanding what it all means.
>
>The second section is entitled: "The Conditions of Equilibrium
>for Heterogeneous Masses in Contact when Uninfluenced by Gravity,
>Electricity, Distortion of the Solid Masses, or Capillary
>Tension." It's here that Gibbs introduces the state function
>which has come to bear his name.
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>In order to arrive as directly as possible at the most
>characteristic and essential laws of chemical equilibrium, we
>will first give consideration to a case of the simplest kind.  We
>will examine the conditions of equilibrium of a mass of matter of
>various kinds enclosed in a rigid and fixed envelop, which is
>impermeable to and unalterable by any of the substances enclosed,
>and perfectly non-conducting to heat....
>
>It will be observed that the supposition of a rigid and non-conducting
>envelop enclosing the mass under discussion involves no loss of
>generality, for if any mass of matter is in equilibrium, it would
>also be so, if the whole or any part of it were also enclosed in
>an envelop as supposed; therefore the conditions of equilibrium for
>a mass so enclosed are the general conditions which must always
>be satisfied in case of equilibrium. As for the other suppositions
>which have been made, all the circumstances which are here excluded
>will afterward be made the subject of special discussion.
>
>Let us first consider the energy of any homogeneous part of
>the given mass, and its variation for any possible variation
>in the composition and state of this part. (By homogeneous
>is meant that the part in question is uniform throughout, not
>only in chemical composition, but also in physical state.) If
>we consider the amount and kind of matter in this homogenous
>mass as fixed, its energy u is a function of the entropy s, and
>its volume v, and the differentials of these quantities are subject
>to the relation
>
>du = t ds - p dv,
>
>t denoting the (absolute) temperature of the mass, and p its
>pressure. For t ds is the heat received, and p dv the work done
>by the mass during its change of state. But if we consider the
>matter in the mass as variable, and write m1, m2, m3, ..., mn
>for the quantities of the various substances S1, S2, S3, ..., Sn
>of which the mass is composed, u will evidently be a function
>of s, v, m1, m2, m3, ..., mn, and we shall have for the complete
>value of the differential of u:
>
>du = t ds - p dv + mu1 dm1 + mu2 dm2 + mu3 dm3 + ... + mun dmn,
>
>mu1, mu2, mu3, ... mun denoting the differential coefficients
>of u taken with respect to m1, m2, m3, ..., mn.
>
>The substances S1, S2, S3, ..., Sn, of which we consider the
>mass composed must of course be such that the values of the
>differentials dm1, dm2, dm3, ..., dmn shall be independent,
>and shall express every possible variation in the composition of
>the homogeneous mass considered, including those produced by
>the absorption of substances different from any initially
>present....                                          
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>Gibbs then further clarifies what he means using some more
>explicit examples, since there are still ambiguities left in the
>above discussion. What he says is very well worth reading, but I
>won't reproduce it here. He continues:
>

thank you .  My head is overheating.

>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...

Evidence dkomo 6/2/01 2:40 PM
George Acton wrote:
>
> You seem to be operating on a syllogism that goes:
>
>     If we cannot demonstrate Divine violation of standard physical
>       laws, then God does not exist.
>
>     The origin of life is such a violation..
>
>     Therefore, God exists.
>

I think zoe_althrop is operating with this syllogism (sillygism):

     If we can demonstrate that a violation of standard physical
       laws has occurred, then God exists.
 
     The origin of life is such a violation..
 
     Therefore, God must exist.
 
> The problem is that you don't understand the laws well enough to
> attack them competently.
>     --George Acton

Agreed!

I'm beginning to suspect that zoe_althrop is an AI program running on
a computer at the ICR.  Its mission is to drop posts into talk.origins
and keep the evolutionists tied up in knots, allowing the ICR to
spread its doctrine unobstructed.  Like the infamous Eliza AI program
that mimicked the conversation of a psychiatrist, zoe_althrop tak...

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/2/01 2:55 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:47:48 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  

'Intervention'?

You are just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

        Mark

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 3:00 PM
In article <3b1958b3....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 15:39:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b193c50....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 2 Jun 2001 02:59:08 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3b1853d8...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>i disagree. most of what we do is learned. thats one thing which
>>>>>differentiates us from other animals.
>>>>>
>>>>And you are not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>>>
>>>see the word 'most' there? creationists, being literalists, are blind
>>>to language.
>>>
>>So creationists are other animals.
>>>
>>Back to business. Are humans not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>>How is it possible to learn if the ability does not exist.
>
>that is not an instinct. it is not a sequence of well defined
>behaviors.
>
Is too! ACTUALLY, instincts are NOT "well defined behaviors"...
Evidence muju51 6/2/01 3:05 PM
In article <3b1958eb....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...What is an "average" dictionary? One that intentionally misleads people or ones
written be people who don't bother to find out what the real meanings are?

>
>>>
>>>>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to action
>>>>  that is common to all members of a given species of the same sex and is
>>>>  gener...
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 3:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:37:58 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 10:37:35 -0400, Jon Fleming
><jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>>Ah.  Now I understand what you mean by "spontaneous".  Sadly, your
>>definition is meaningless.  
>
>why is it meaningless?  "To understand" means to see meaning in an
>explanation.  Maybe what you mean is, "ah, now I understand, but I
>don't agree"?  Why don't you agree?  

Well, I suppose it has some meaning in some sense, but I contend that
it has no use.  "... any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease" is
useless because:

1.  "Abnormal is not quantitatively defined.

2.  There is no apparent reason for the qualification "without any
intervening abnormal decrease" or, deleting the unquantified term,
"any intervening decrease".  Note that entropy is a state variable;
the entropy of a system _does_ _not_ _depend_ on how the system got to
its current state.  That is, the final entropy is independent of
whether or not the entropy (or any other quantity) increased or
decreased or stayed the same during the reaction.  It's like
temperature; the temperature of a system depends only on current
conditions, not how hot or cold the system has been in the past.

3.  For the life of me, I can't see what use this defintion of
"spontaneous" has in terms of classifying reactions or making
predicitons.  How about listing a dozen or so reactions and
classifying them as spontaneous or not spontaneous using this
definition?

>
>>See David Kahana's post on Gibbs free
>>energy in this thread.  
>
>I did read David's post and replied to it, after which I went to
>lunch.  That was at 12:30 p.m.  It is now 3:30 p.m., and I see that my
>response to him did not make it through.
>
>>It will take some study and effort to
>>understand, but the explanation is there.
>>
>
>explanation for what?

Why entropy is not useful in classifying chemical reactions.

> Certainly not an explanation for how positive
>free energy

All free energy is postive.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE
ENERGY.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE ENERGY.  THERE IS NO
SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE ENERGY.  NEVER USE THE PHRASE "POSITIVE
FREE ENERGY".

>decreases entropy,

That's because changes in free energy may or may not decrease or
increase entropy.  Talking about how changes in free energy decreases
or increases  entropy is meaningless except in particular cases.  To
be able to understand those cases and talk about it, YOU'VE GOT TO DO
THE MATH.  Talking about how "positive free enrgy decreases entropy"
is meaninfless because the phrase "positive free energy decreases
entropy" is meaniungless.

>which is what my thread is addressing.
>It seems to me that David spent a lot of time giving, admittedly, a
>very valuable explanation of entropy at equilibrium, but I'm really
>interested in the modification of conditions at a level above
>equilibrium.

I don't know what you mean by "above equilibrium", since "above" is a
spatial relationship but "equilibrium" is not a spatial quantity
(unless you're talking about phase space or state space, which I
doubt, but if you are then "above equilibrium" in phase space or state
space is still meaningless).  If you are talking about non-equilibrium
conditions, then there's no point in trying to discuss it until you
have mastered some _exteremely_ hairy mathematics and advanced
thermodynamic concepts.  I would have to do some heavy refresher
reading before even attempting it. Trying to explain or discuss
non-equilibrium thermodyanmics with you would be like trying to
explain Bill Gate's tax return to a two-yea...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 3:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:54:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 10:41:14 -0400, Jon Fleming
><jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2 Jun 2001 10:16:49 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>snip>
>>>I'm thinking that all chemical reactions are spontaneous, sooner or
>>>later.  But there are some reactions that will not begin spontaneously
>>>unless a system is in place that drives the chemicals into their
>>>spontaneous reactions -- thermionic coupling, according to Gyudon.  
>>>
>>>And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
>>>saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
>>>presence of entropy.
>>
>>The genetic _code_ is not something that is amenable to analysis by
>>thermodynamics.  You may be confusing the genetic code with the
>>structure of DNA; you've done that before.
>>
>
>if you'd reread the above.  I am saying, "the SYSTEM of the genetic
>code," meaning, the system of which t...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 3:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 11:58:31 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>


>wrote:
>
>>
>>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b18f1a9.6130927@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>>[snip].
>>>
>>> And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
>>> saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
>>> presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
>>> reactions.
>>
>>For the nth time: the genetic code is not a reaction. It is a code.
>
>habits are hard to shake -- I really must become more precise in my
>language, at least here on T.O.

Fuzzy use of language is an indication of fuzzy thinking.

>
>I meant that the SYSTEM of replication that contains the genetic code
>is an example of nonspontaneous chemical reactions.

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 4:05 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 13:59:48 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip>
>> and it is this system that I'm talking about -- is it reasonable to
>> think that a system that requires a decrease in entropy in order to
>> form, will do so just as a result of spontaneous chemical reactions?
>
>If the system is receiving energy from outside it, yes. It happens all the
>time. Fridges make things colder, therefore reducing entropy. They need
>energy to work, that is why you have to plug them in.
>

the manufacture of the fridge is what I'm interested in.  It takes
nonspontaneous energy to create a refrigeration system that is capable
of reducing entropy, doesn't it?

>snip>
>> >
>> >Everything that happens is by definition thermodynamically spontaneous,
>> >otherwise it would not happen. Therefore, the cows eating the plants is a
>> >spontaneous process. Unless you want to argue that the cows are being
>forced
>> >to eat the plants. That of course depends on the farmer. Some are rather
>> >pushy and make their cows eat against their will.
>> >
>>
>> lol.  However, it sounds as if you're saying that there is really no
>> such thing as non-spontaneous reactions.  What happened to the
>> reversal of the effects of the 2LoT?
>
>You are not trying to understand. The second law of thermodynamics can't be
>reversed: it is a law.
>

the effects of this law cannot be reversed?  Decrease in entropy is
not a reversal of entropy?

>
>>
>>snip>
>
>Up until now you were just parading your  ignorance in a rather humble and
>polite way. Now you are trying to get cocky. Cockyness and  ignorance make
>for a nasty mix.
>
>

hey, let me make this quite clear:   any politeness you see is
directed only towards posters.  I thoroughly respect your keen
intellects here on T.O., and am humbled by your vast knowledge.
However, I cannot say the same for the theory that you hold.  It is so
unsatisfactory to my intelligence -- ridiculous even -- that I wonder
how s...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 4:20 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 19:00:02 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 00:15:51 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher."  I am defining rock
>>>>pushing as a change in free energy.
>>>
>>>Then the sun is a rock pusher.  It increases free energy.
>>>
>>
>>I meant a change in the positive direction.
>
>An increase in free energy is in the positive direction.  Do you think
>"increase" really means "decrease"?
>

an increase of free energy says nothing about how that free energy is
used.  It could be used in a positive process or a negative one.  It
is this change that I mean.

>snip>
>>>OK, you're wrong.   Vitamin D synthesis is triggered and powered by
>>>sunlight.
>>>
>>
>>I meant reactions in the reproductive system, actually.
>
>Then why didn't you say so?  And why did you mean only reactions in
>the reproductive system?  Why not in the digestive system or in the
>skin or in they lymphatric system or ...?
>

because I was concentrating on just one nonspontaneous system, the
replication system.  

>>
>s...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 4:25 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 14:04:32 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

snip>
>
>> >>
>> >> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>> >> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>> >> surface.
>> >
>> >You are wrong. Just 5 examples:
>> >1. how do you get a suntan?
>> >2. how do you make vitamin D?
>> >3. How do you get skin cancer?
>> >4. how do plants get energy from the sun?
>> >5. How can you see?
>> >
>>
>> I really meant that sunlight striking the body does not cause the
>> reproductive apparatus to function.
>
>No, you didnt mean that. You are just moving the goal posts.
>

clarifying what I really meant is now considered moving the goal
posts?  Come on.

>> >>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>> >> order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>> >> systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>> >> sunlight here.   This does not sound like ...

Evidence dkomo 6/2/01 4:35 PM
George Acton wrote:
>
> You seem to be operating on a syllogism that goes:
>
>     If we cannot demonstrate Divine violation of standard physical
>       laws, then God does not exist.
>
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 4:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:47:48 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

<snip>

> It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is


>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.

I suspect you are misunderstanding, depending on exactly what you mean
by "intervention".  There are many ways that entropy of a system can
decrease, many of them "natural" processes that occur spontaneously.

>However, a system
>like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
>must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
>two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.

You made some incorrect assertions at the start of this thread.  You
have not provided any evidence for any of the assertions you have made
in this thread.  You have not provided a chain of reasoning that leads
from generally accepted knowledge to any of...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 4:45 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>you lost me completely here, but I think you're in a different area of
>thermodynamics, anyway, equilibrium -- I'm into modification.

Er, Zoe, I just realized that (as in so many other cases), you appear
to be using a non-standard defintiion of "equilibrium".  "Equilibrium"
is a fundamental technical term in thermodynamics.  The discussion at
<http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo0.html> appears to be
pretty good.  Yuo might also want to look at
<http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/sci/chem/show/fs.html>,

Essentially, "equilibrium" does not mean "eternaly unchanging".
Analysis of change is possible with equilibrium thermoduynamics (if it
wasn't, thermodynamics would be uninteresting).

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 4:45 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 19:18:02 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 00:27:17 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
snip>
>>
>>what is your standard for reliability in a witness?
>
>It is extremely unlikely that there _is_ such a thing as a human
>reliable witness.  As I pointed out in another message, people in
>general are terrible witnesses.
>
>However, in order for there to be a chance that a person is a reliable
>witness:
>
>1.  There should be no possible reason why that person would care
>about the contents of the story that they are telling; they should be
>a dispassionate observer with nothing at stake in the outcome.
>

you clearly have not sat through a court trial.  A witness is not
ruled out because he/she is related to the victim, or was present at
the scene of a crime.  They are the first ones subpoenaed to testify.
Witnesses are examined because they have something to contribute to
the discovery of information re an incident.  Period.  Pertinent
information qualifies a person to be a witness.


>2.  There should be some independent corroboration significant
>portions of that person's (or persons', if there are multiple
>witnesses) account.
>

well, there was independent corroboration via four gospels from
different writers, all testifying to just about the same information,
but coming from different perspectives -- which is to be expected in
the testimonies of different witnesses about the same event.  You do
not expect the testimony to be identical.

>3.  There should be some assessment of the person's record of
>veracity, pr...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 4:50 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>snip>
>>
>> when a witness is reliable, his story gets believed and passed on to
>> other reliable witnesses.
>
>So, listening to a story makes you a witness? That is very interesting. So,
>I can say I witnessed Columbus disembarking in America. That's cool.
>

I think you know exactly what I mean.  And yes, your belief in the
story of Columbus tells me that you think there were reliable
witnesses back in Columbus's time that passed on an account of  his
conquests.

snip>

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 5:10 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:27 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

>zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
>
>>On 31 May 2001 20:59:41 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>snip>
>>>Who is this "Jesus God"? I went 12 years to a catholic school and this is
>>>the first mention of this person I have heard.
>
>>are you serious?  They don't talk about Jesus God in catholic schools?
>
>No.
>
>They talk about Jesus, they talk about a god, they talk about a holy
>ghost and they talk about saints, but they don't talk about "Jesus
>God". Whatever that may be, it's not in the catholic dictionary.
>

figures.

well, anyway, Jesus God is mentioned repeatedly in the Bible -- my
source and foundation for what I believe.  "And He shall be called
Immanuel, God with us."  For one example.  Just one....

>>Jesus God is the human manifestation of the one true God of the
>>universe.  He broke through human history in order to reveal Himself
>>to us.
>
>That's not catholi...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 5:10 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 19:21:01 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 00:30:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)


>wrote:
snip>
>>
>>when a witness is reliable, his story gets believed and passed on to
>>other reliable witnesses.
>
>Ridiculous. That would make Hitler one of the most reliable witnesses
>to events of the 2oth century.
>

what did Hitler witness to?  Hitler had an obsessive idea that he
tried to push through.  This is not a witness of anything.  Are you
saying that Hitler was a witness of some particular event?  And if so,
what is this event?

snip>
>
>As I said, trying to justify their choices of convince others of the
>testimony of their choices.  People are great rationalizers.
>

as you maybe are doing right now?

snip>
>>
>>yet our justice system is based entirely upon the testimony of
>>witnesses.
>
>Not at all.  Testimony of eyewitnesses is avoided wherever possible.
>See the links I provided in a slightly earlier message.
>

I ha...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 5:10 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 19:01:51 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 13:59:48 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>


>wrote:
>
>>
>>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>>> lol.  However, it sounds as if you're saying that there is really no
>>> such thing as non-spontaneous reactions.  What happened to the
>>> reversal of the effects of the 2LoT?
>>
>>You are not trying to understand. The second law of thermodynamics can't be
>>reversed: it is a law.
>>
>
>the effects of this law cannot be reversed?  Decrease in entropy is
>not a reversal of entropy?

Decrease of entropy is not "reversal" of the second law or prohidited
by the second law.  The second law puts limitations on the conditions
under which entropy can be decreased.

>>Up until now you were just parading your  ignorance in a rather humble and
>>polite way. Now you are trying to get cocky. Cockyness and  ignorance make
>>for a nasty mix.
>>
>>
>
>hey, let me make this quite clear:   any politeness you see is
>directed only towards posters.  I thoroughly respect your keen
>intellects here on T.O., and am humbled by your vast knowledge.
>However, I cannot say the same for the theory that you hold.  It is so
>unsatisfactory to my intelligence -- ridiculous even -- that I wonder
>how such intelligent people as you are can possibly hold onto such an
>embarrassment of a theory.  There must be something more to this.

Yes, there is.  You're failing to understand a _lot_.

>
>snip>
>>> >
>>>
>>> the point is that these mechanisms are a result of decreased entropy.
>>> The energy required to reverse increasing entropy does not come from
>>> sunlight.  That "solution" has been a smoke screen for too long, I
>>> think.
>>
>>Me and countless other people of good-will and endless patience have tried
>>to illustrate to you that yes, the energy comes ultimately from the sun. It
>>is in any primary sch...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 5:15 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 14:29:30 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

snip>
>
>I think that your biblical knowledge is as sketchy as your scientific
>knowledge. The Bible is a selection of texts referring to a particular
>religious tradition, ie, the Judeo-Christian. Many texts in the
>Judeo-Christian tradition were included in the Bible, many were left out. A
>"thorough" search of any mention of god would bring up quite a few other
>texts that the compilers of the Bible did not like.
>

there are false gods, and then there is the one true God of the
universe, self-proclaimed as such.  It is this one true God that I
mean when I say a search for all references to this particular Yaweh
was made.  All writers of the bound compilation called the Bible refer
to Yaweh, and no one else, as the true God.

>snip>
>
>I didnt know that Christianity was a "movement".
>In any case, if you take these words of Jesus seriously why are you
>continually churning out questions about science?

...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 5:15 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 23:03:52 -0400, David Ewan Kahana
><kah...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>

>> I've no
>>proof or argument to support the truth or falsehood of that
>>proposition, but the second law has turned up in some unexpected
>>ways in the study of black holes.
>
>they've found the existence of 2LoT in black holes?  Or they have
>incorporated 2LoT into their theory of black holes?

yes, they have. stephen hawking, among others, has discovered that the
increase in surface areas of black holes is related to their entropy.

>

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 5:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 17:56:46 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1958b3....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>
>>>>
>>>Back to business. Are humans not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>>>How is it possible to learn if the ability does not exist.
>>
>>that is not an instinct. it is not a sequence of well defined
>>behaviors.
>>
>Is too! ACTUALLY, instincts are NOT "well defined behaviors". They are innate
>programming characteristics

they are programmed BEHAVIORS. again, i cite the harcourt dictionary
of science:

>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to action
>  that is common to all members of a given species of the same sex and is
>  generally based on a biological need.

so where did you happen to make up your definition of instinct?

.. Humans(primates) have an innate characteristic or
>ability to learn. They do not learn to learn. They are hard-wired with the
>ability. Therefore, you are disprove...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 5:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 19:41:34 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 19:18:02 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>2.  There should be some independent corroboration significant
>>portions of that person's (or persons', if there are multiple
>>witnesses) account.
>>
>
>well, there was independent corroboration via four gospels from
>different writers, all testifying to just about the same information,
>but coming from different perspectives -- which is to be expected in
>the testimonies of different witnesses about the same event.  You do
>not expect the testimony to be identical.

except we know the gospels were not independent. mark was written
before the others and was used as source material.

>
>>3.  There should be some assessment of the person's record of
>>veracity, preferably in similar situations.
>>
>
>agreed.  If the first disciples were considered to be untrustworthy
>persons, their eyewitness accounts would not have spread li...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 5:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 19:17:11 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 19:00:02 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 00:15:51 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>isn't the above an answer?
>>
>>No.  It's not evidence, it's an assertion.  What observations support
>>this assertion?  What experiments support his assertion?  What chain
>>of reasoning leads from generally accepted principles to this
>>conclusion?
>>
>
>evidence is that entropy increases unless there is introduced a
>mechanism to reduce entropy.

Yes, but the I suspect you are operating with an overly restrictive
idea of what such a mechanism may be.  Energy input from sunlight is
one mechanism that can decrease entropy.

>Evidence is that mechanisms to reduce
>entropy are never spontaneous.

No, at least not in the usual meaning of spontaneous.  Formation of a
snowflake is spontaneous (and the entropy of the snowflake decreases)
.... melting ...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 5:25 PM
In article <3b19807a....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...He must have a damn long arm, or has one in his pocket.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 5:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 18:02:50 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1958eb....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>
>>
>>uh, its a science dictionary. while its not perfect, its a little bit
>>better than the average dictionary.
>>
>What is an "average" dictionary? One that intentionally misleads people or ones
>written be people who don't bother to find out what the real meanings are?

a non technical dictionary. as to misleading, try creationism. they do
it all the time.

>>
>>patterns of behavior. correct. learning is not a 'pattern of behavior'
>>like a mating dance is.
>>
>Not correct. It does not say instinct are patterns of behavior. You can read
>better than that, even being a janitor. It says instincts are innate programming
>characteristics.

here's what the harcourt science dictionary says:

>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to action
>  that is common to all members of a given species of the same sex and is
>...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 5:25 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 11:58:05 -0400, Thomas Griffin <tgri...@uic.edu> wrote:

>
>zoe_althrop wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>> your doubt is killing you.
>
>Hey, don't assume that everyone is as miserable as you and so pathetically
>frightened and insecure about their place in the cosmos that they need to convince
>themselves of ridulous fairytales to feel their lives have meaning and purpose.
>I am one of the most sincerely happy and centered people I know,

personally, I feel that someone who goes about so suspicious and
distrustful of his fellow human beings cannot be truly happy or
centered.  This sounds more like paranoia to me.

however, if you truly are happy, then you would be a very shortsighted
person if you would find life to be deeply satisfying and filled with
happiness, and yet you would refuse to follow up on any possibility,
or search out any information that could lead to an extension of this
short life of 70 years or so.  Regardless of how much you enjoy your
present life, you are going to die, you know.

>that is why I do
>not need a father figure continually watching over me to make me feel loved.
>Also, "doubt" implies that your silly God hypothesis is even worth consideration.
>Doubt implies that I think that y...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 5:30 PM
In article <3b197faa...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop says...

>
>On 1 Jun 2001 14:29:30 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>I think that your biblical knowledge is as sketchy as your scientific
>>knowledge. The Bible is a selection of texts referring to a particular
>>religious tradition, ie, the Judeo-Christian. Many texts in the
>>Judeo-Christian tradition were included in the Bible, many were left out. A
>>"thorough" search of any mention of god would bring up quite a few other
>>texts that the compilers of the Bible did not like.
>>
>
>there are false gods, and then there is the one true God of the
>universe, self-proclaimed as such.  It is this one true God that I
>mean when I say a search for all references to this particular Yaweh
>was made.  All writers of the bound compilation called the Bible refer
>to Yaweh, and no one else, as the true God.
>
>>snip>
>>
>>I didnt know that Christianity was a "movement".
>>In any case, if you ...
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/2/01 5:35 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 19:41:34 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 19:18:02 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 00:27:17 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>snip>
>>>
>>>what is your standard for reliability in a witness?
>>
>>It is extremely unlikely that there _is_ such a thing as a human
>>reliable witness.  As I pointed out in another message, people in
>>general are terrible witnesses.
>>
>>However, in order for there to be a chance that a person is a reliable
>>witness:
>>
>>1.  There should be no possible reason why that person would care
>>about the contents of the story that they are telling; they should be
>>a dispassionate observer with nothing at stake in the outcome.
>>
>
>you clearly have not sat through a court trial.  A witness is not
>ruled out because he/she is related to the victim, or was present at
>the scene of a crime.  They are the first ones subpoenaed to testify.
>Witnesses are examined because they have something to contribute to
>the discovery of information re an incident.  Period.  Pertinent
>information qualifies a person to be a witness.

True, but it's not enugh to qualify that operson as a _reliable_
witness.

>
>
>>2.  There should be some independent corroboration significant
>>portions of that person's (or persons', if there are multiple
>>witnesses) account.
>>
>
>well, there was independent corroboration via four gospels from
>different writers, all testifying to just about the same information,
>but coming from different perspectives -- which is to be expected in
>the testimonies of different witnesses about the same event.  You do
>not expect the testimony to be identical.

Yes.  How important those differences are is a matter of opinion.

>
>>3.  There should be some assessment of the person's record of
>>veracity, preferably in similar situations.
>>
>
>agreed.  If the first disciples were considered to be untrustworthy
>persons, their eyewitness accounts would not have spread like
>wildfire.  People who are known to be liars in a community don't get
>believed so that their testimony spreads like wildfire.

you're coming at it the wrong way, still assuming that the rel...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 5:40 PM
On 31 May 2001 12:53:35 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
snip>
>But is it not an axiom of the scientific method that physical laws do not
>change over time?
>

I'm sure they do not.  But you've proffered your singularities.  I
proffer mine.

>>>Anyway, as I have proposed repeatedly before, there are more ways to
>>>thermionically couple than are in use by our metabolism.
>
>>and those ways are non-spontaneous ways.
>
>Actually, those ways are spontaneous. You use the energy from a spontaneous
>reaction to drive a nonspontaneous one, as has been repeatedly been explained.
>

it is the nonspontaneous reaction that I am interested in.  It occurs
in a system that could not, itself, turn the tide of the 2LoT in order
to form.

>>>>> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>>>>>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?
>
>>>>no, I wouldn't wonder that.  The mechanism is in place and we see it
>>>>work every day.
>
>>>And certainly another mechanism was in place for every nonspontaneous
>>reaction
>>>in the history of the planet.
>
>>what was this other mechanism?
>
>Well, evaporation is one option. Once you have membranes

"once you have membranes."  You slide quite easily over this stage.  

> you can set up solute
>gradients. Or you can just use chemical reactions, in the manner that your body
>dooes now. Combustion's actually a pretty simple reaction.
>

how did the body's systems decrease in entropy?

>>>>>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>>>>>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>>>>>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.
>
>>>>agreed.  I am not asking THOSE questions.
>
>>>You seem to be asking what method of thermionic coupling existed in the
>>>earliest days of the planet. Am I correct?
>
>>I am asking, is it reasonab...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 5:45 PM
In article <3b197ef8...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop says...>>That's not catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine Jesus was
>>th...
Evidence zoe_althrop 6/2/01 5:45 PM
On 31 May 2001 22:46:58 -0400, jb...@home.com (John Pieper) wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 20:57:35 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
snip>
>>
>>the sun only provides free energy, imo.  What happens to that free
>>energy, negative or positive, depends on spontaneous or
>>non-spontaneous actions; is this correct?
>
>Umm...what _happens_ to the free energy? The only thing I can think of
>to happen is that is gets absorbed. To the system that's absorbing it,
>it's a positive gain in energy.
>

it is the system that I am interested in.  How did it form and reduce
its entropy under the prevailing law of 2LoT?

>What, in your view, is the difference between "positive" and "negative"
>free energy?
>

positive is nonspontaneous; negative is spontaneous.

>>snip>
>>>
>>
>>I really don't think the sun can be called positive free energy.  If
>>it were, you would find all sorts of systems springing into action all
>>around us, especially in the sunnier parts of the world.  Instead, t...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 5:55 PM
In article <3b1981ad....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 17:56:46 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b1958b3....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Back to business. Are humans not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>>>>How is it possible to learn if the ability does not exist.
>>>
>>>that is not an instinct. it is not a sequence of well defined
>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>Is too! ACTUALLY, instincts are NOT "well defined behaviors". They are innate
>>programming characteristics
>
>they are programmed BEHAVIORS. again, i cite the harcourt dictionary
>of science:
>
They are programmed CHARACTERISTICS. How do you program "behavior"???? Are you
so blind you think software is programmed into DNA or brains? It is hardware,
dojo. ROM(read only memory). Behavior is how we act(software).

>
>>instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency to action
>>  that is common to all members ...
Evidence muju51 6/2/01 6:00 PM
In article <3b198254....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 18:02:50 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b1958eb....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>uh, its a science dictionary. while its not perfect, its a little bit
>>>better than the average dictionary.
>>>
>>What is an "average" dictionary? One that intentionally misleads people or ones
>>written be people who don't bother to find out what the real meanings are?
>
>a non technical dictionary. as to misleading, try creationism. they do
>it all the time.
>
Wf3h, this may be the statement that most correctly characterized your bigotry.
You respond with a fragment of a sentence, use the word "misleading", then carry
the rant on about "creationists."
>
I have reasoned with you enough about this definition to show that it would not
matter WHAT I said or what evidence I gave, you would act and talk the same way.

>
You listening, VanDeWettering?
>
[snip...

Evidence Ryan Eby 6/2/01 7:10 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3b197a5f.41134858@news-
server.cfl.rr.com:

> On 1 Jun 2001 19:21:01 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>>
>>>yet our justice system is based entirely upon the testimony of
>>>witnesses.
>>
>>Not at all.  Testimony of eyewitnesses is avoided wherever possible.
>>See the links I provided in a slightly earlier message.
>>
>
> I happen to work in the legal field, and I've never come across a team
> of lawyers assiduously avoiding eyewitnesses.  They go after them like
> lions after red meat.

Of course not, witnesses can throw doubt on it. My friends in the
investigative field however hate them and go by the old saying that "the
worst thing you can have is multiple eye-witnesses".

>
> --
> zoe
>
>

Evidence dkomo 6/2/01 7:25 PM
newbie wrote:
>
> In article <3b197faa...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop says...
> >
> >
> >do you think that a belief in God cuts out an interest in science?  It
> >only increases it.
> >
> I suspect that the evolutionists *require* this assumption of "creationists."
> I've heard it a million times, to the effect that creationists do not "like"
> science.

Not so much they don't like it, as they don't understand it very
well.  That is proven over and over again by creationist posts in
talk.orgins.  It's hard to understand and accept science if you
constantly have to interpret it through the filter of a bizzare
religious dogma.

A creationist well-versed in science?  That's a contradiction in
terms.


     --dk...@cris.com

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:30 PM

you dont know who hawking is, do you?

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:35 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:08:38 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:27 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:
>>
>>That's not catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine Jesus was
>>the child of a god and a human female. The Roman Catholic Church
>>asserts that this Jesus was a special, but fully human being, not a
>>god.
>>
>
>I never realized that they believed this.  Then I guess the Bible is
>not the foundation for their beliefs.

no, this is not true. the RCC teaches jesus was fully human and fully
god. he was the 2nd person of the trinity. catholics believe orthodox
christian doctrine regarding jesus.

(cf, 'the catechism of the catholic church', paragraphs 232, 237, 242,
253, 262, and 266)

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:52:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1981ad....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 2 Jun 2001 17:56:46 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b1958b3....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Back to business. Are humans not hard-wired with the innate ability *to* learn?
>>>>>How is it possible to learn if the ability does not exist.
>>>>
>>>>that is not an instinct. it is not a sequence of well defined
>>>>behaviors.
>>>>
>>>Is too! ACTUALLY, instincts are NOT "well defined behaviors". They are innate
>>>programming characteristics
>>
>>they are programmed BEHAVIORS. again, i cite the harcourt dictionary
>>of science:
>>
>They are programmed CHARACTERISTICS. How do you program "behavior"????

you program behaviour genetically. flies have almost all their
interaction with the environment genetically programmed. they do
virtually no learning. almost all their behavior is genetically based.

you're really asking that question?

>>
>Of course you pretend not to have seen the 3 or 4 times I have posted it.
>>
>http:/...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:26:22 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b197faa...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop says...
>>
>>
>>do you think that a belief in God cuts out an interest in science?  It
>>only increases it.
>>
>I suspect that the evolutionists *require* this assumption of "creationists."
>I've heard it a million times, to the effect that creationists do not "like"
>science.
>>]
which is true. when you compare the attitude of some christians, like
the pope, who do accept science, vs those of creationists who dont,
its obvious being a creationist is not a requirement to be a
christian. thus creationist is by definition antiscience.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:45 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:35:16 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 12:53:35 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>And why do you disagree with the evolutionary model of the history of life?
>>
>
>it is a platform resting on no foundation.  You cannot present a
>foundation for macroevolution, and yet you build faithfully upon your
>platform, wasting, imo, a lot of your keen intelligence on a very
>rickety premise.

zoe presents a world filled with magic. to her, the SLOT did not apply
to life, even though its a law of nature. to her, observed evolution
doesnt exist, even though its observed.

and the 'platform' for 'micro' evolution is the same for
macro..natural selection acting on mutations.

what is the mechanism for creation? zoe cant tell us. she spends ALL
her time telling us evolution DOESNT happen and NONE telling how
creationism DOES. all creationists do this because their argument is a
failure.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:45 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:41:20 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 31 May 2001 22:46:58 -0400, jb...@home.com (John Pieper) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I really don't think the sun can be called positive free energy.  If
>>>it were, you would find all sorts of systems springing into action all
>>>around us, especially in the sunnier parts of the world.  Instead, the
>>>sun beats down upon us, and no new systems organize themselves out of
>>>the ground.
>>
>>You mean, like..."plants"?
>
>come on, John, is this how scientists arrive at the theory of
>macroevolution?  They squint at a plant, their eyes glaze over, as
>they announce that, magically, a plant has organized itself out of the
>ground?  You know there is a seed, and that seed carries the oak
>within it -- another example of reduced entropy, btw.
>

he gave a good example of a sun influenced reduction in entropy.

the creationist, unable to come up with a response, snickers like a
pimply adolescent, and walks away.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/2/01 7:45 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:57:57 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b198254....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 2 Jun 2001 18:02:50 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b1958eb....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>uh, its a science dictionary. while its not perfect, its a little bit
>>>>better than the average dictionary.
>>>>
>>>What is an "average" dictionary? One that intentionally misleads people or ones
>>>written be people who don't bother to find out what the real meanings are?
>>
>>a non technical dictionary. as to misleading, try creationism. they do
>>it all the time.
>>
>Wf3h, this may be the statement that most correctly characterized your bigotry.
>You respond with a fragment of a sentence, use the word "misleading", then carry
>the rant on about "creationists."

rant? you mean i shouldnt rant about the lies creationists tell? it
seems you guys are so immoral you've lost your ...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 8:00 PM
In article <3b19a079....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...Isn't he the...
Evidence muju51 6/2/01 8:15 PM
In article <3b19a246....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...Spare us your ridiculous conclusions. You have to be a real moron to believe
anyone "doesn't accept science." There must be a wf3h world existing entirely in
another dimension. THUS you are a nutcase. I seriously doubt that you...
Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/2/01 8:15 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 19:01:51 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>the manufacture of the fridge is what I'm interested in.  It takes
>nonspontaneous energy to create a refrigeration system that is capable
>of reducing entropy, doesn't it?

Funny, it _looks_ like a real paragraph, but when you try to imagine
what the words actually mean, you get nowhere.

        Mark
--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 8:20 PM
In article <3b19a294....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...Yes! You are supporting my case.

>
>>>
>>Of course you pretend not to have seen the 3 or 4 times I have posted it.
>>>
>>http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/53/0535E000.htm?z=1&...
Evidence newbie 6/2/01 8:25 PM
In article <3b19a373....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 20:57:57 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b198254....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 2 Jun 2001 18:02:50 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3b1958eb....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>uh, its a science dictionary. while its not perfect, its a little bit
>>>>>better than the average dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>What is an "average" dictionary? One that intentionally misleads people or ones
>>>>written be people who don't bother to find out what the real meanings are?
>>>
>>>a non technical dictionary. as to misleading, try creationism. they do
>>>it all the time.
>>>
>>Wf3h, this may be the statement that most correctly characterized your bigotry.
>>You respond with a fragment of a sentence, use the word "misleading", then carry
>>the rant on about "creationists."
>
>rant? you mean i ...
Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/2/01 8:30 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 20:57:57 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>I have reasoned with you enough about this definition to show that
>it would not matter WHAT I said or what evidence I gave, you would
>act and talk the same way.

>You listening, VanDeWettering?

Should I be?

I'm not particularly interested in this instinct stuff, although
I did locate a couple of nice articles about brood parasitism.  If
you guys get back to talking about instincts rather than arguing
about arguments or definitions, then perhaps there will be something
interesting to say.

If talk.origins has taught me anything, it is that you can't make
a person discuss topics in a rational, reasoned way.  I'll admit
that I don't think wf3h's has been arguing in a particularly rational
or even tempered way, but he _is_ arguing with you after all, and
your "style" tends to bring out the worst in people.

Frankly, I don't know why you both don't just ignore each other.

        Mark

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/fl...

Evidence Jonathan Stone 6/2/01 8:40 PM
In article <3b19a0b8....@news.ptdprolog.net>,  <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>On 2 Jun 2001 20:08:38 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:27 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>That's not catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine Jesus was
>>>the child of a god and a human female. The Roman Catholic Church
>>>asserts that this Jesus was a special, but fully human being, not a
>>>god.

<splork> egad, Arianism. In this day and age; can anyone be so naive
as to think the Catholic Church teaches Arianism?
Do I smell the aroma of dead goat coming under that bridge?

>>I never realized that they believed this.  Then I guess the Bible is
>>not the foundation for their beliefs.
>
>no, this is not true. the RCC teaches jesus was fully human and fully
>god. he was the 2nd person of the trinity. catholics believe orthodox
>christian doctrine regarding jesus.

Two words: nicene creed.

Evidence Jonathan Stone 6/2/01 8:45 PM
In article <3B19A10A...@cris.com>, dkomo  <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>newbie wrote:
>
>Not so much they don't like it, as they don't understand it very
>well.  That is proven over and over again by creationist posts in
>talk.orgins.  It's hard to understand and accept science if you
>constantly have to interpret it through the filter of a bizzare
>religious dogma.
>
>A creationist well-versed in science?  That's a contradiction in
>terms.
>

There's the academic legend of sincere fundamentalists working at Los
Alamos, who allegedly don't let the left brain know what the right
brain is doing...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 9:00 PM
In article <slrn9hjbgu...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
VandeWettering says...

>
>On 2 Jun 2001 20:57:57 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>I have reasoned with you enough about this definition to show that
>>it would not matter WHAT I said or what evidence I gave, you would
>>act and talk the same way.
>
>>You listening, VanDeWettering?
>
>Should I be?
>
>I'm not particularly interested in this instinct stuff, although
>I did locate a couple of nice articles about brood parasitism.  If
>you guys get back to talking about instincts rather than arguing
>about arguments or definitions, then perhaps there will be something
>interesting to say.
>
>If talk.origins has taught me anything, it is that you can't make
>a person discuss topics in a rational, reasoned way.  I'll admit
>that I don't think wf3h's has been arguing in a particularly rational
>or even tempered way, but he _is_ arguing with you after all, and
>your "style" tends to bring out the worst in peo...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/2/01 9:50 PM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 31 May 2001 12:53:35 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>snip>
>>But is it not an axiom of the scientific method that physical laws do not
>>change over time?
>>
>
>I'm sure they do not.  But you've proffered your singularities.  I
>proffer mine.

I have profferred nothing of the kind.

>>>>Anyway, as I have proposed repeatedly before, there are more ways to
>>>>thermionically couple than are in use by our metabolism.
>>
>>>and those ways are non-spontaneous ways.

>>Actually, those ways are spontaneous. You use the energy from a spontaneous
>>reaction to drive a nonspontaneous one, as has been repeatedly been
>explained.

>it is the nonspontaneous reaction that I am interested in.  It occurs
>in a system that could not, itself, turn the tide of the 2LoT in order
>to form.

Why not?

>>>>>> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>>>>>>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?

>>>>>no, I wouldn't wonder that.  The mechanism is in place and we see it
>>>>>work every day.

>>>>And certainly another mechanism was in place for every nonspontaneous
>>>reaction
>>>>in the history of the planet.

>>>what was this other mechanism?

>>Well, evaporation is one option. Once you have membranes

>"once you have membranes."  You slide quite easily over this stage.  

Phospholipids form bilayers spontaneously when you place them in water.

>> you can set up solute
>>gradients. Or you can just use chemical reactions, in the manner that your
>body
>>dooes now. Combustion's actually a pretty simple reaction.

>how did the body's systems decrease in entropy?

Thermionic coupling. Please try to pay attention.

>>>>>>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>>>>>>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>>>>>>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.

>>>>>agreed.  I am not asking THOSE questions.

>>>>You seem to be asking what method of thermionic coupling existed in the
>>>>earliest days of the planet. Am I correct?

>>>I am asking, is it reasonable to assume that in the presence of 2LoT,
>>>that negative free energy would be the cause for the organization and
>>>development of the genetic coding system, which gives evidence of
>>>reduction in ...

Evidence H,R.Gruemm 6/2/01 9:55 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in message news:<3b195a5c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...

> one off-topic question:  what causes spin?  

If anything can be said to "cause" spin, it is the (local) isotropy of
space: there is no preferred direction. Thus all 3-dimensional
rotations are symmetries; physics is invariant under them.

Whenever all rotations are symmetries, spin arises. It describes the
way that particles transform under rotations. Since we can classify
all such "behaviors" under rotations (and call them "representations"
of the rotation group), we can tell that particles can have spin
0,1/2,1,3/2,2.....

> And why doesn't the law of
> physics demonstrate "maintained spin" as a result of explosions here
> on Earth?

I can't quite parse this sentence. If you are talking about angular
momentum, it is perfectly well conserved in explosions as well. Its
conservation is a result of the isotropy of space we were talking
about.

Regards,
HRG.

<snip>

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/2/01 10:30 PM
>>your "style" tends to bring out the worst in people.

>I should have known. You post to this thread more than once. You
>lecture me on how to behave. I tell you why I am behaving a certain
>way, you say if it were not me, you would be more inclined to
>agree(or something). Now when I show you that what I said would
>happen, and happens every single time, you claim you arent interested
>in the subject, and don't even address what I asked you about above.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear newbie.  Allow me to elucidate further.

If I was being kind and even handed, I'd say you and I disagree
about a great deal.  What I really mean is that you are mistaken
about a great deal.  Before you get your panties in a bunch, that
_is_ only my opinion, and I am pretty sure that you hold none too
high opinion about me.  That's fine, I can live with that.

That is not to say that it is impossible for you to be correct
about things.  While I might agree with you in principle that some
human behaviors are instinctive, I find this discussion with wf3h
rather uninteresting not just because it has degraded into a conflict
of personalities, but also because I don't feel that people with
...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/2/01 10:50 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010602160445.11896.00000297@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From newbie:
>>
>>>In article <20010602144007.11909.00000881@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>From newbie:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <20010602051804.12810.00000168@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But it's a damn sight better than hopping up and down and demanding to
>be
>>>>>>proven wrong before taking any steps to provide evidence that one is
>>>right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And on that "demanding" note, I leave you with the same evidence you give
>>>>>here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>Ah, but I made an existentially negative claim. The less evidence there is
>>>of
>>>>what I claim does not exist, the better.
>>
>>>"Demanding" is a behavior that can be identified; and there are a finite
>>>number
>>>of posts existing in reality that can be searched to find whether this
>>>behavior
>>>has been demonstrated. Sound like you are choosing what claims you want to
>be
>>>considered "existentially negateve".
>>
>>Yes, because the ones that are existentially negative fit the form "X does
>not
>>exist." Negative claims such as "X is not true" don't make the cut.

>All this existential talk about something that DOES exist.

You mean the procedures having to do with existential claims?

>>>>You on the other hand made an existentially positive claim. The support
>for
>>>>your claim actually goes down the less evidence you give.

>>>Isn't this a rather ridiculous claim?

>>Not really. If you claim that something does exist, surely even you can see
>>that your claim will be bolstered simply by providing examples of what you
>>claim to exist.

>Milk does not exist in honey. Does that mean that my Honey-O's breakfast in
>the
>morning does not contain milk?

Only if your breakfast consisted entirely of honey-o's.

But what does this have to do with anything?

>>>Support goes down the less evidence
>>>given?
>>
>>Yes. Less evidence is less support.

>Good convincing evidence is strong support by itself. You differentiate
>quality
>and quanity. This is not necessarily correct in all situations.

But if I have seen no evidence, in the form of instinctive behavior in humans
(to say nothing of sea sponges), then there is no support.

>>>Unless you are using "support" to mean acceptance.
>>
>>Nope, just support.

>Whew. Thought you might be going colloquial on me again.

Archaic, not colloquial.

>>>>I do hope you don't mind restoring the snip.

>>>If I "minded" it, I would not have snipped it. You can do as you please.

>>Well, I suppose I could have expected no better.

>Now you recognize "quality?"

In matters of usenet conduct, rather than support for claims, "no better" has a
different character.

>>>>It contains some matter I'm sure we'd like to see you address.

>>>I doubt that.

>>You doubt that it contains matter, you doubt we'd like you to address it, or
>>you doubt that I'm sure about it?

>I doubt "we" exists.

In this forum you can find more people than me still hanging around this
thread. These people seem to enjoy hearing from you and responding to you.

>>>Yet can "we" now say "we" are demanding?

>>No, we are just very itnerested in hearing it. Don't let us down like you
>have
>>so often in the past with your dismissive snips.

>Interested in hearing what? Confirmation of your accusations?

Evidence of instincts in humans and sea sponges, actually.

>>>>Especially the part about how your argument
>>>>suddenly changed from instincts being necessary for life to instincts
>being
>>>>necessary for animal life.

>>>Why, Gyudon. I am proud of you. You maintain your reputation of
>>>misrepresentation admirably.

>>The argument did mutate.

>Ah, colloquiality. The "argument" went off a side branch. Get your
>evolutionary
>terms correct.

It wasn't used in an evolutionary sense. But why did you make the arena animal
life rather than life in general?

>>>Thanks for allowing readers to believe that I "changed" my argument. Sure,
>it
>>>would have been nice had you had any statements from me actually stating
>that
>>>I
>>>changed my argument,

>>Oh, but if you actually made the change obvious, it wouldn't have the
>quality
>>of movage of the goalposts that characterizes so many creationist arguments.

>More "quality" talk. I am surprised. Gyudon, "obvious" as used in the above
>should read "real" or "with a statement".

Why?

>Your inferences to what I say have
>no
>bearing on reality.

I see you talking about instincts being necessary for survival, and then
suddenly the word "animal" just sort of creeps in. It's an inference only in
the most trivial sense when the evidence is there very clearly in 1's and 0's.

>I can say crap like you just said just as many times as
>you
>do. In fact, as far as whether anyone has moved goalposts in this debate, you
>would be a more likely candidate.

Will I have to spend post upon post asking for evidence of this as well?

>All I have done is make an unsupported
>claim
>(hypothesis if you will), and argued that wf3h's "disproof" is not d...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/2/01 10:55 PM
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 2 Jun 2001 14:34:09 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>>From Zoe Althrop:
>snip>
>>>
>>>I'm thinking that all chemical reactions are spontaneous, sooner or
>>>later.  But there are some reactions that will not begin spontaneously
>>>unless a system is in place that drives the chemicals into their
>>>spontaneous reactions -- thermionic coupling, according to Gyudon.  
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>>And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
>>>saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
>>>presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
>>>reactions.
>>
>>Do you listen to *anything* anyone ever tells you? Thermionic coupling is
>used
>>to drive nonspontaneous reactions,
>
>hey, you're changing on me now.  Up there you said I was correct when
>I said that a system has to be in place in order to drive chemicals
>into their spontaneous reactions.

Then I must have misread. That statement is not correct.

>Now you're saying the opposite,
>that spontaneous reactions are used to drive nonspontaneous reactions?

Yes.

>>and is ess...

Evidence muju51 6/2/01 11:05 PM
In article <slrn9hjilf...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark>such diverse opinions could reach a similar definition of instinct
>that would permit meaningful discus...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/2/01 11:30 PM
In article <20010603014528.13798.00004787@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>
[snip]
Gyudon, I really do not care to address these long posts. Most of what I snipped
had to do with one thing, your saying I moved the goalposts, or changed my
argument... I will say this once more. Wf3h brought up human instinct. That has
been the topic so far.
>
And the "existentially negative" thing I regard as a non-topic. A claim is a
claim, whether negative or positive. Claims need to be supported with evidence
and reasoning. If a thing is not known to exist, you would have a point. But
instincts do exist in primates, this is widely accepted, and several posters
agreed to this before this thread even started. As humans are primates, the
*question* of whether instincts exist in humans is a mute point to say the
least.  
>
If you agree on whether humans have instincts, then so state, and we can
continue with what the material kept below. If not, then why would I continue,
knowing that you feel my claim has already been disproved?
>
>>>Okay, I have one. The sea sponge. No specialized tissues, no behavior in the
>>>biological sense of the word, and hence no instincts, and still...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 1:50 AM
From newbie:

>In article <20010603014528.13798.00004787@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>[snip]
>Gyudon, I really do not care to address these long posts. Most of what I
>snipped
>had to do with one thing, your saying I moved the goalposts, or changed my
>argument... I will say this once more. Wf3h brought up human instinct. That
>has
>been the topic so far.

So, as your argument is still that instinct is necessary for the survival of
any living thing, I submit to you bacteria, which exhibit no behavior and hence
no instinctive behavior, and yet are alive.

>And the "existentially negative" thing I regard as a non-topic. A claim is a
>claim, whether negative or positive. Claims need to be supported with
>evidence

The evidence required for an existentially negative claim is the total lack of
any evidence for the existence of what is claimed not to exist. It is
reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should have no
evidence of their existence?

>and reasoning. If a thing is not known to exist, you would have a point. But
>instincts do exist in primates,

*All* primates?

>this is widely accepted, and several posters
>agreed to this before this thread even started. As humans are primates, the
>*question* of whether instincts exist in humans is a mute point to say the
>least.  

Moot, not mute.

Apart from which, humans have rather a long list of characteristics that sets
them apart from every other animal on the planet. Are you saying definitely
that a lack of instinct is not among them?

>If you agree on whether humans have instincts, then so state, and we can
>continue with what the material kept below. If not, then why would I
>continue,
>knowing that you feel my claim has already been disproved?

All you have to do is name a single instinct that humans exhibit. Just name one
of ...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 2:10 AM
In article <20010603044846.13635.00005119@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>
[snip]
>
Stick with the sponge.

>
>The evidence required for an existentially negative claim is the total lack of
>any evidence for the existence of what is claimed not to exist. It is
>reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should have no
>evidence of their existence?
>
Yes, Gyudon.
>
Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have instincts" is
an existentially negative claim? How would you prove it if you agree.
>
[snip]

>
>>If you agree on whether humans have instincts, then so state, and we can
>>continue with what the material kept below. If not, then why would I
>>continue,
>>knowing that you feel my claim has already been disproved?
>
>All you have to do is name a single instinct that humans exhibit. Just name >one
>of those primate instincts that you say are so widely accepted. If humans can
>be grouped with primates on the basis of their instinctive characteri...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/3/01 2:40 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:D4nS6.2650$v4.117110@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

> You did not answer the question.

Speaking of which...

What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?

And why did Newbie lie in a related issue when he claimed I inserted the
word "component" into his words?

Why did Newbie accuse "wilderness_voice" of lies when he had no evidence of
lies?

Why did Newbie flee the genetic discussion when he was challenged about his
claim that "evolutionists don't know squat about evolution?"

And so on...and so on...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/3/01 2:45 AM
Whoops.

"Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote in message
news:HAnS6.45131$qs3.20075590@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

[Snip]

> Why did Newbie flee the genetic discussion when he was
> challenged about his claim that "evolutionists don't know
> squat about evolution?"

That should be "evolutionists don't know squat about genetics."

[Snip]

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 5:50 AM

>anyone "doesn't accept science." There must be a wf3h world ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 5:50 AM
On 2 Jun 2001 23:39:10 -0400, jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan
Stone) wrote:

>...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 5:50 AM
On 2 Jun 2001 23:16:39 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b19a294....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>nor is the ability to learn an instinct. it is not a well defined
>>pattern of behaviors.
>>
>No shit? Tell that to a baby.

again, if learning was an instinct, everyone would learn the same
thing...thats what 'pattern of behaviors' means. since creationists
exist, its obvious some folks learn nothing. thus learning is not a
pattern of behaviors.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 5:55 AM
On 2 Jun 2001 23:24:00 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b19a373....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>when you show a specific pattern of genetically programmed behaviors
>>humans have then you'll have defined 'human instinct'. you havent.
>>
>You listening, VanDeWettering? I have stated directly, two primal instincts in
>humans and primates(also in other animals):selfpreservation and reproduction.

self preservation is not an instinct since it is not a well defined
pattern of behaviors. if SP was instinctual, we wouldnt have people
who sacrificed themselves in war.

if reproduction was an instinct, we wouldnt have people who choose
celibacy.

>>

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/3/01 10:30 AM
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

>In article <3b19a0b8....@news.ptdprolog.net>,  <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>>On 2 Jun 2001 20:08:38 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:

>>>On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:27 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>>>wrote:

>>>>That's not catholic doctrine. According to catholic doctrine Jesus was
>>>>the child of a god and a human female. The Roman Catholic Church
>>>>asserts that this Jesus was a special, but fully human being, not a
>>>>god.

><splork> egad, Arianism. In this day and age; can anyone be so naive
>as to think the Catholic Church teaches Arianism?

I should have given more attention to the words of Father Verlinden,
in stead of those of Monique sitting next to me. But then, a 16 year
old girl is rather more interesting than a 60 year old monk.

>Do I smell the aroma of dead goat coming under that bridge?

A pungent aroma does waft from those regions, I agree, but could it be
that red herring, exercising the ...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 10:45 AM
From newbie:

>In article <20010603044846.13635.00005119@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>[snip]
>>
>Stick with the sponge.
>>
>>The evidence required for an existentially negative claim is the total lack
>of
>>any evidence for the existence of what is claimed not to exist. It is
>>reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should have no
>>evidence of their existence?
>>
>Yes, Gyudon.
>>
>Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have instincts"
>is
>an existentially negative claim?

Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."

But this surely is a secondary concern. Your claim is that instinct is
necessary for survival. Bacteria do not have instincts. They survive.

>How would you prove it if you agree.

The proof lies in there never being a single recorded instance of instinctual
behavior among humans.

Better still, among bacteria.

>[snip]
>>
>>>If you agree on whether humans have instincts, then so state, and we can
>>>continue with what the material kept below. If not, then why would I
>>>continue,
>>>knowing that you feel my cla...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Mr. Spank 6/3/01 11:35 AM

"Gyudon Z" <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010603134300.13658.00004857@ng-ch1.aol.com...

> From newbie:
>
> >In article <20010603044846.13635.00005119@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
says...
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >Stick with the sponge.
> >>
> >>The evidence required for an existentially negative claim is the total
lack
> >of
> >>any evidence for the existence of what is claimed not to exist. It is
> >>reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should have
no
> >>evidence of their existence?
> >>
> >Yes, Gyudon.
> >>
> >Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have
instincts"
> >is
> >an existentially negative claim?
>
> Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."
>
> But this surely is a secondary concern. Your claim is that instinct is
> necessary for survival. Bacteria do not have instincts. They survive.
>
> >How would you prove it if you agree.
>
> The proof lies in there never being a single recorded instance of
instinc...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 11:50 AM
From Mr. Spank:

>instinctual
>> behavior among humans.
>>
>> Better still, among bacteria.
>>
>
>Here is the definition of the word instinct:
>
>2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make
>a complex and specific r...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/3/01 12:35 PM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:D4nS6.2650$v4.117110@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

> You did not answer the question.

Speaking of which...

What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?

And why did Newbie lie in a related issue when he claimed I inserted the
word "component" into his words?

Why did Newbie accuse "wilderness_voice" of lies when he had no evidence of
lies?

Why did Newbie flee the genetic discussion when he was challenged about his
claim that "evolutionists don't know squat about...[genetics]...?"

And so on...and so on...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 1:15 PM
In article <20010603134300.13658.00004857@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010603044846.13635.00005119@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>Stick with the sponge.
>>>
>>>The evidence required for an existentially negative claim is the total lack
>>of
>>>any evidence for the existence of what is claimed not to exist. It is
>>>reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should have no
>>>evidence of their existence?
>>>
>>Yes, Gyudon.
>>>
>>Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have instincts"
>>is
>>an existentially negative claim?
>
>Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."
>
I see your answer. Is this your proof?

>
>But this surely is a secondary concern. Your claim is that instinct is
>necessary for survival. Bacteria do not have instincts. They survive.
>
My claim might be considered disproven with human instinct, although I would
argue that.
>
>>How would you prove it if you agree.
>
>The proof lies in there never being a single recorded instance of instinctual
>behavior among humans.
>
Hold on, hoss. This is a claim, not a proof. You claim that instincts do not
exist, therefore you claim that it is a negative claim that humans dont have
instincts, therefore you claim that is proof.
>
>Better still, among bacteria.
>
I'll hold this on the back burner till the issue of instincts in humans is
settled.  

>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>If you agree on whether humans have instincts, then so state, and we can
>>>>continue with what the material kept below. If not, then why would I
>>>>continue,
>>>>knowing that you feel my claim has already been disproved?
>
>>...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 1:25 PM
In article <20010603144854.13658.00004866@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...>>2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable t...
Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 4:05 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>Here are a few. The blink reflex.
>
> a reflex is not an instinct.

I could be hard to make a hard line of difference here, but I
see that some have tried.

Here are three examples:
  The kick reflex when your knee is hit at the right place.
  The blink reflex.
  The rooting reflex of a baby seeking the nipple.

I consider that "instinct" *is* a kind of reflex; but one
that operates indirectly, and specifically through the
brain. To be instinctive, the stimulus recognition should
require some level of information processing in the brain,
and the response should come as a result of that processing.

The kick reflex is not instinctive, as I use the term. The
rooting reflex is instictive, as I use the term. The blink
reflex is in a grey area, I supect. I am happy not to call
it instinctive: I was aiming for a kind of spectrum of
behaviours.

>  The rooting reflex in infant
>>humans. Our sexual relationships are powerfully driven by
>>inate instincts. Parenting ins...

Evidence muju51 6/3/01 4:50 PM
In article <3b1a...@news.qut.edu.au>, Chris Ho-Stuart says...

>
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>>Here are a few. The blink reflex.
>>
>> a reflex is not an instinct.
>
>I could be hard to make a hard line of difference here, but I
>see that some have tried.
>
>Here are three examples:
>  The kick reflex when your knee is hit at the right place.
>  The blink reflex.
>  The rooting reflex of a baby seeking the nipple.
>
>I consider that "instinct" *is* a kind of reflex; but one
>that operates indirectly, and specifically through the
>brain. To be instinctive, the stimulus recognition should
>require some level of information processing in the brain,
>and the response should come as a result of that processing.
>
Meaning involuntay processing, like read only memory? Like the function of
hard-wired tissue that was created by DNA?

>
>The kick reflex is not instinctive, as I use the term. The
>rooting reflex is instictive, as I use the term. The blink
>reflex is in a grey area, I supect. I am happy not to call
>it instinctive: I was aiming for a kind of spectrum of
>behaviours.
>
>>  The rooting reflex in infant
>>...
Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 4:55 PM
newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> In article <3b1a...@news.qut.edu.au>, Chris Ho-Stuart says...
[snip]
>>I am, in fact, kind of amazed to here this arguement coming
>>from the evolutionist side of the fence.
>>
> I understand hear that you mean, but... I started the argument.
> You should not be amazed that wf3h is arguing against me. Phhh- T.

Good point. It must be instinctive. :-)

Chris

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 4:55 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 19:03:05 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> parents dont have instincts. language is not an instinct because its
>> not a response to an external stimulus.
>
>I think the first assertion would be hard to defend. Human
>parents do experience involuntary feelings, and automatic
>untrained reactions to infants, and their own children
>especially.
>
>The claim that human parents have no instincts looks to be
>drawing a sharp line between humans and the rest of the
>natural world which is actually a line of many shades of grey.

there is a difference between humans and the rest of the natural
world, just as there is between every species and every other. thats
why we can say species are unique.
>
>The use and the form of language seems to have some inate
>characteristics which are hard wired for humans -- instinctive.

and i disagree. the use of your arm is hard wired. you cant bend it in
certain directions, and children le...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 5:00 PM
From newbie:

>>>creatures that exhibit traits that defy millions of years of evolution
>>>probably won't pass on their genes to the next generation.

>>That is an interesting point, but our newbie's argument was that instincts
>are
>>necessary for survival, which I took to refer to the survival of the
>organism,
>>not its genes.

>Gyudon, if an organism does not survive to reproduce, its genes will not
>survive.

Well, obviously. But if the organism survives but does not reproduce, the
organism will have survived even if its genes do not.

"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 5:00 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010603134300.13658.00004857@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From newbie:
>>
>>>In article <20010603044846.13635.00005119@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>Stick with the sponge.
>>>>
>>>>The evidence required for an existentially negative claim is the total
>lack
>>>of
>>>>any evidence for the existence of what is claimed not to exist. It is
>>>>reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should have no
>>>>evidence of their existence?
>>>>
>>>Yes, Gyudon.
>>>>
>>>Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have instincts"
>>>is
>>>an existentially negative claim?
>>
>>Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."

>I see your answer. Is this your proof?

It is until you demonstrate that instincts in humans do exist.

>>But this surely is a secondary concern. Your claim is that instinct is
>>necessary for survival. Bacteria do not have instincts. They survive.

>My claim might be considered disproven with human instinct, although I would
>argue that.

So would I. Your claim might be considered disproven *without* human instinct,
technically.

But let's move along to bacteria.

>>>How would you prove it if you agree.

>>The proof lies in there never being a single recorded instance of
>instinctual
>>behavior among humans.
>
>Hold on, hoss. This is a claim, not a proof.

It is an existentially negative claim. Remember what we said about those? If
there is no evidence of what is claimed not to exist, then the claim is
considered correct.

>You claim that instincts do not
>exist,

Among humans.

>therefore you claim that it is a negative claim that humans dont have
>instincts,

It is an existentially negative claim. It follows the formula "X does not
exist".

>therefore you claim that is proof.

No, the proof is the lack of observed instincts in humans.

>>Better still, among bacteria.

>I'll hold this on the back burner till the issue of instincts in humans is
>settled.  

Why do the instincts in humans even matter in re: bacteria? Human behavior
could be entirely instintcive, but if bacteria have no instincts the claim that
life requires instincts to survive is incorrect.

>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>If you agree on whether humans have instincts, then so state, and we can
>>>>>continue with what the material kept below. If not, then why would I
>>>>>continue,
>>>>>knowing that you feel my claim has already been disproved?

>>>>All you have to do is name a single instinct that humans e...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 5:15 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 19:49:35 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1a...@news.qut.edu.au>, Chris Ho-Stuart says...
>>
>>
>>I am, in fact, kind of amazed to here this arguement coming
>>from the evolutionist side of the fence.
>>
>I understand hear that you mean, but... I started the argument. You should not
>be amazed that wf3h is arguing against me. Phhh- T.
>
hardly. much opposition comes from chris ho stuart who aint a
creationist.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 5:15 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 19:53:56 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

well since im arguing against both a creationist AND an evolutionist,
seems to me its objective. :-p

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 5:35 PM

Or an instinct for arguing in general? :-)

I'm not an expert here, by the way. I am merely very surprised
to see the notion being argued that humans have no instincts.

If I was to pursue this subject seriously I'd have to do some
reading first before my opinion has any real value, and by reading
I don't mean just looking for support for my current vie...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/3/01 5:45 PM
From Chris Ho-Stuart:

>I don...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 5:50 PM
In article <20010603195808.19064.00000892@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>>>creatures that exhibit traits that defy millions of years of evolution
>>>>probably won't pass on their genes to the next generation.
>
>>>That is an interesting point, but our newbie's argument was that instincts
>>are
>>>necessary for survival, which I took to refer to the survival of the
>>organism,
>>>not its genes.
>
>>Gyudon, if an organism does not survive to reproduce, its genes will not
>>survive.
>
>Well, obviously. But if the organism survives but does not reproduce, the
>organism will have survived even if its genes do not.
>
No it won't. Organism's die, Gyudon. Life would not continue if that happened
before reproduction or if reproduction never takes place.
>


Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 5:55 PM
In article <20010603195455.19064.00000890@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>
>From newbie:
>

>>>>>It is reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should
>>>>>have no evidence of their existence?
>
>>>>Yes, Gyudon.
>
>>>>Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have instincts"
>>>>is an existentially negative claim?
>>>
>>>Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."
>
>>I see your answer. Is this your proof?
>
>It is until you demonstrate that instincts in humans do exist.
>
Cool! And I am accused of not liking science. Hooda thunk.
>
[snip]

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 5:55 PM
Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> From Chris Ho-Stuart:
[snip]
>>You implied in an earlier post that there might be other animals
>>beside humans which have no instinct. Is that right?
>
> That was probably me. I'm the other one who's been taking up the
> "humans have no instincts" banner.

OK; thanks.

> But I'm reasonably sure that sea sponges, which are animals,
> do not exhibit any manner of instinctive behavior. (Or behavior
> of any other kind). You can chop the little buggers into shreds
> and they'll do nothing.

I was thinking rather of animals more closely related to humans.
Are there animals which fail to have instincts in the same sense
that you consider humans not to have instincts?

Cheers -- Chris

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 6:10 PM
From newbie:

Yes, but if the organism does survive to the age where it has reproductive
potential and can be reasonably expected to reproduce, but doesn't, it has
fulfilled the necessary evolutiona...

Evidence muju51 6/3/01 6:15 PM
In article <20010603204308.19064.00000905@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...>>I don't mean just looking for support for my current views.
>>
>>One great way to get objective here would, I suggest, be to
>>look at s...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/3/01 6:20 PM
From Chris Ho-Stuart:

I don't know if I actually do consider humans not to have instincts anymore.

If I absolutely had to hazard a guess about something more closely related to
humans it would probably be one of our extinct hominid cousins and I'd have a
hell of a time...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 6:25 PM
From newbie:

Why, because it actually insists that you support your claims?

"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 6:35 PM
In article <20010603210743.19064.00000912@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010603195808.19064.00000892@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>
>>>From newbie:
>
>>>>>>creatures that exhibit traits that defy millions of years of evolution
>>>>>>probably won't pass on their genes to the next generation.
>
>>>>>That is an interesting point, but our newbie's argument was that instincts
>>>>>are necessary for survival, which I took to refer to the survival
>>>>of the organism, not its genes.
>
>>>>Gyudon, if an organism does not survive to reproduce, its genes will not
>>>>survive.
>
>>>Well, obviously. But if the organism survives but does not reproduce, the
>>>organism will have survived even if its genes do not.
>
>>No it won't. Organism's die, Gyudon. Life would not continue if that happened
>>before reproduction or if reproduction never takes place.
>
>Yes, but if the organism does survive to the age where it has reproductive
>potential and can be rea...
Evidence muju51 6/3/01 6:50 PM
In article <20010603211828.19064.00000918@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...>hell of a time supporting that view.
>
You just don't get it. Think of instinct as programmed instructions from DNA.
>
>Note to newbie: I am aware that this may at f...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 6:55 PM
In article <20010603211922.19064.00000919@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010603195455.19064.00000890@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>From newbie:
>>>
>>>>>>>It is reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist should
>>>>>>>have no evidence of their existence?
>>>
>>>>>>Yes, Gyudon.
>>>
>>>>>>Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have
>>instincts"
>>>>>>is an existentially negative claim?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."
>>>
>>>>I see your answer. Is this your proof?
>>>
>>>It is until you demonstrate that instincts in humans do exist.
>>>
>>Cool! And I am accused of not liking science. Hooda thunk.
>
>Why, because it actually insists that you support your claims?
>
For claims to be supported, yes!
>
I think you mentioned that support was like "test". Forgive me if it was another
poster. Anyway, support is like testing. What comments do you have of string
theory? T...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/3/01 7:00 PM
From newbie:

>>>look at studies of instinct which do not refer to humanity.


>>>
>>>You implied in an earlier post that there might be other animals
>>>beside humans which have no instinct. Is that right?
>>
>>That was probably me. I'm the other one who's been taking up the "humans
>have
>>no instincts" banner.
>>
>Sorry, I haven't seen you do so.

What do you think we've been talking about for the last few days?

>>But I'm reasonably sure that sea sponges, which are animals, do not exhibit
>any
>>manner of instinctive behavior. (Or behavior of any other kind). You can
>chop
>>the little buggers into shreds and they'll do nothing.

>Really? Oh, I'd like to know more about this solid consistency you say makes
>up
>sponges, that they have no specialized tissues.

T...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 7:05 PM
From newbie:

>>Yes, but if the organism does survive to the age where it h...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 7:05 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 20:33:48 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> On 3 Jun 2001 19:53:56 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
>> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <3b1a...@news.qut.edu.au>, Chris Ho-Stuart says...
>>>[snip]
>>>>>I am, in fact, kind of amazed to here this arguement coming
>>>>>from the evolutionist side of the fence.
>>>>>
>>>> I understand hear that you mean, but... I started the argument.
>>>> You should not be amazed that wf3h is arguing against me. Phhh- T.
>>>
>>>Good point. It must be instinctive. :-)
>>>
>>>Chris
>>
>> well since im arguing against both a creationist AND an evolutionist,
>> seems to me its objective. :-p
>
>Or an instinct for arguing in general? :-)
>
>I'm not an expert here, by the way. I am merely very surprised
>to see the notion being argued that humans have no instincts.
>
>If I was to pursue this subject seriously I'd have to do some
>reading firs...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 7:10 PM
From newbie:

Same poster, different word. "...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 7:10 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 21:49:02 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <20010603211828.19064.00000918@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>
>>Note to newbie: I am aware that this may at first glance countervene the rules
>>about existentially negative claims, but is quite clear that a detailed study
>>on the behavior of extinct hominids is impossible, so I cannot with any
>>certainty assert that something was or was not one of their behavioral traits
>>in the same way that I can regarding extant species. The logical rules >relating
>>to existential claims are generally tempered by what we can or cannot be
>>certain of.
>>
>This is really stretching. Humans are primates. Much evidence exists and is
>known of primate instinct. Humans have been humans for only a short period of
>time. Your position is coming from an argument of incredulity, not scientific.
>>
>>But consider it my natural instinct--oops, inclination--to keep things focused
>>on the vociferous creationist. His argument...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/3/01 7:25 PM
From newbie:

Well, my DNA is programmed to produce hemoglobin, but the production of
hemoglobin is not a behavior and definitely not an action in response to a
specific environmental stimulus.

>>Note to newbie: I am aware that this may at first glance countervene the
>rules
>>about existentially negative claims, but is quite clear that a detailed
>study
>>on the behavior of extinct hominids is impossible, so I cannot with any
>>certainty assert that something was or was not one of their behavioral
>traits
>>in the same way that I can regarding extant species. The logical rules
>>relating
>>to existential claims are generally tempered by what we can or cannot be
>>certain of.

>This is really s...

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 7:25 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
[smip]
> while chris and i disagree on instinct, thats a disagreement easy to
> resolve if any of us found evidence for or against instinct. one of us
> is wrong.

Part of the disagreement may be on definitions. It looks a bit like
you are using the word "instinct" in a rather idiosyncratic way. I
don't really understand why you don't consider to rooting reflex of
infants to be an instinct.

On more complex behaviours, such as parenting instincts or sexual
instincts, your definition appears to be a bit black and white; my
present understanding is that human behaviour is in these areas is
not exclusively instictive, nor exclusively learned, nor exclusively
deliberate. That instinct has no part at all seems to be either
simply incorrect, or possibly a very limited notion of "instinct".

Cheers -- Chris

Evidence muju51 6/3/01 7:35 PM
In article <3b1aeca1....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...>>>on the vociferous creationist. His argument was that survival itself is
>>>dependent on instincts. Wf3...
Evidence Gyudon Z 6/3/01 7:45 PM
From Chris Ho-Stuart:

Actually, my biology textbook somewhat agrees with his rather specific and
delineated concept of instinct. Actions that are  genetically d...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 7:45 PM
In article <20010603220642.19064.00000930@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From newbie:
>
>>In article <20010603211922.19064.00000919@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>
>>>From newbie:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010603195455.19064.00000890@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>>
>>>>>From newbie:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is reasonable, don't you think, that things that do not exist
>>should
>>>>>>>>>have no evidence of their existence?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, Gyudon.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now one for you. Do you think that the claim "humans do not have
>>>>instincts"
>>>>>>>>is an existentially negative claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. It is a rewording of "Instincts in humans do not exist."
>>>>>
>>>>>>I see your answer. Is this your proof?
>>>>>
>>>>>It is until you demonstrate that instincts in humans do exist.
>>>>>
>>>>Cool! And I am accused of not liking science. Hooda thunk.
>>>
>>>Why, because it actually insists that you support your claims?
>>>
>>For claims to be supported, yes!
>>>
>>I think you...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 8:10 PM
From newbie:

>>>I think you mentioned that support was like "test". Forgive me if it was
>>>another
>>>poster.
>>
>>Same poster, different word. "prove" is like "test", but only in the archaic
>>sense of the word.
>>
>So how do I know w...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) muju51 6/3/01 8:30 PM
In article <20010603230759.19064.00000939@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...>>So how do I know when you or any evolutionist is just being "archaic" with
>...
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 9:00 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 22:31:58 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b1aeca1....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>
>>WRT creationism, however, there is simply the fact: creationism is
>>wrong. period.
>>
>Only the fool says in his heart, there is no God. Someone said that, know who?
>>

which has zip to do with evolution. the pope accepts evolution as
science. most religions do. only cultists say there's a contradiction
between science and scripture

>Bigotry is disdainful, and you plainly show that you do not limit your
>definition of creationist to the members of the ICR.
>

creationism is not a race; its a belief. beliefs can be evil.
creationism is evil.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 9:05 PM

>Actually, my biology textbook somewhat agrees with ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 9:05 PM
On 3 Jun 2001 22:23:36 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>[smip]
>> while chris and i disagree on instinct, thats a disagreement easy to
>> resolve if any of us found evidence for or against instinct. one of us
>> is wrong.
>
>Part of the disagreement may be on definitions. It looks a bit like
>you are using the word "instinct" in a rather idiosyncratic way. I
>don't really understand why you don't consider to rooting reflex of
>infants to be an instinct.

because its a reflex...i am using both the definition i remember from
by undergrad days, and the definition of the harcourt science
dictionary.


>
>On more complex behaviours, such as parenting instincts or sexual
>instincts, your definition appears to be a bit black and white; my
>present understanding is that human behaviour is in these areas is
>not exclusively instictive, nor exclusively learned, nor exclusively
>deliberate. That instinct has no part at all seems to be either
>si...

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 9:25 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2001 22:23:36 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>[smip]
>>> while chris and i disagree on instinct, thats a disagreement easy to
>>> resolve if any of us found evidence for or against instinct. one of us
>>> is wrong.
>>
>>Part of the disagreement may be on definitions. It looks a bit like
>>you are using the word "instinct" in a rather idiosyncratic way. I
>>don't really understand why you don't consider to rooting reflex of
>>infants to be an instinct.
>
> because its a reflex...i am using both the definition i remember from
> by undergrad days, and the definition of the harcourt science
> dictionary.

The definition from Harcourt fits the rooting reflex to perfection.

Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)

How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?

Note also that the Harcourt dictionary refers to "herd instinct",
and applies this to humans also...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/3/01 9:45 PM
On 4 Jun 2001 00:24:24 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> On 3 Jun 2001 22:23:36 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
>> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>>[smip]
>>>> while chris and i disagree on instinct, thats a disagreement easy to
>>>> resolve if any of us found evidence for or against instinct. one of us
>>>> is wrong.
>>>
>>>Part of the disagreement may be on definitions. It looks a bit like
>>>you are using the word "instinct" in a rather idiosyncratic way. I
>>>don't really understand why you don't consider to rooting reflex of
>>>infants to be an instinct.
>>
>> because its a reflex...i am using both the definition i remember from
>> by undergrad days, and the definition of the harcourt science
>> dictionary.
>
>The definition from Harcourt fits the rooting reflex to perfection.

unfortunately it doesnt. we know that, because we know of human
REFLEXES which fit the same definition. for example, if someone...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Gyudon Z 6/3/01 9:50 PM
From newbie:

>>>such
>>>words as testing, proving, disproving, and evolution.
>>
>>When the person using it is obviously not showing off a knowledge of
>etymology
>>by using the archaic definition of a mo...

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/3/01 10:25 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2001 00:24:24 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>> On 3 Jun 2001 22:23:36 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
>>> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>>>[smip]
>>>>> while chris and i disagree on instinct, thats a disagreement easy to
>>>>> resolve if any of us found evidence for or against instinct. one of us
>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Part of the disagreement may be on definitions. It looks a bit like
>>>>you are using the word "instinct" in a rather idiosyncratic way. I
>>>>don't really understand why you don't consider to rooting reflex of
>>>>infants to be an instinct.
>>>
>>> because its a reflex...i am using both the definition i remember from
>>> by undergrad days, and the definition of the harcourt science
>>> dictionary.
>>
>>The definition from Harcourt fits the rooting reflex to perfection.
>
> unfortunately it doesnt. we know that, because we know of human
> REFLEXES which fit the same definition. for example, if someone has
> brain damage, one test to ascertain if the motor systems are destroyed
> is to squirt water into the ear. if the higher brain functions are
> dead, but the motor centers are active, the eyes will go to one side.
> thats a reflex, not an instinct.

But the human rooting reflex does fit the Harcourt definition.

:instinct   Behavior. an inherited pattern of behavior or tendency
:  to action that is common to all members of a given species of the
:  same sex and is generally based on a biological need.

Your response merely presumes that "reflex" and "ins...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/3/01 10:25 PM
From wf3h:

>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
>>
>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
>
>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
>characterization of instinct.

Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?

Anyway, a reflex is more of a simple, immediate, and subconscious response. An
instinct is a little more complicated and engages more neurons, although I
don't know a good neuron cutoff point.

"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Evidence muju51 6/3/01 11:30 PM
In article <20010604012318.12008.00001256@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...

>
>From wf3h:
>
>>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
>>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
>>>
>>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
>>
>>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
>>characterization of instinct.
>
>Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?
>
>Anyway, a reflex is more of a simple, immediate, and subconscious response. An
>instinct is a little more complicated and engages more neurons, although I
>don't know a good neuron cutoff point.
>
Do you have a reference to where this idea arose? Are reflexes differentiated
from instincts because of the amount of neurons involved?
>
If that is the case, then there should be a "cutoff" point, or a minimum amount
for "instincts".
>
My view is that we are all wired up. Neurons, nerves, all "wires." They all come
from the same plac...
Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/4/01 12:45 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:D4nS6.2650$v4.117110@www.newsranger.com...

[Snip]

> You did not answer the question.

Speaking of which...

What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than
chemical processes?

And why did Newbie lie in a related issue when he claimed I inserted the
word "component" into his words?

Why did Newbie accuse "wilderness_voice" of lies when he had no evidence of
lies?

Why did Newbie flee the genetic discussion when he was challenged about his
claim that "evolutionists don't know squat about...[genetics]...?"

And so on...and so on...

Horn's most excellent adventures muju51 6/4/01 1:20 AM
In article <z%GS6.50050$qs3.22...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn says...Excellent addition to the lie-st, Horn! There is a symmetry to them all, a
common thread - your lies.

Newbie's drug-induced fantasies Dave Horn 6/4/01 1:30 AM
Newbie once again dodges the burden of his own claims.

"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:DrHS6.3402$v4.164310@www.newsranger.com...> them all, a common thread -...

Evidence (Newbie still doesn't have any) Dave Horn 6/4/01 1:30 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:lj3S6.1738$v4.74856@www.newsranger.com...
>
> In article <9fadaa$4gra$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...
>
> >Thank you, Newbie!  I have a new Sig for this group now...
>
> You're welcome. Maybe one day your reading comprehension
> will improve.

The operative phrase often used by talk.origins denizens to such a statement
is often, um...

"Pot-kettle-black."

Can Newbie explain how he could read a series of statements of mine that
identify a chapter in a book and then come away claiming that those
statements lead him to the impression that there was no such chapter?

How can Newbie whine so incessantly that I have been constantly questioning
him about "bird flight" when, in fact, the questions had to do with the laws
of matter that life allegedly fails to obey and bird flight was only an
infrequent example?

[Snip]

Evidence Derek Stevenson 6/4/01 6:25 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b196ec5.38164096@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

[snip]

> hey, let me make this quite clear:   any politeness you see is
> directed only towards posters.  I thoroughly respect your keen
> intellects here on T.O., and am humbled by your vast knowledge.
> However, I cannot say the same for the theory that you hold.  It is so
> unsatisfactory to my intelligence -- ridiculous even -- that I wonder
> how such intelligent people as you are can possibly hold onto such an
> embarrassment of a theory.  There must be something more to this.

I find it remarkable that even after all this time, you remain completely
unwilling to consider even the possibility that the problem lies in your own
understanding of the theory.

[snip]

Evidence Derek Stevenson 6/4/01 6:35 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b1716ae.9723270@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 20:55:03 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>

> wrote:
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b15ad6d.47443331@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

[snip]

> >> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
> >> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
> >> surface.
> >
> >You are wrong. Just 5 examples:
> >1. how do you get a suntan?
> >2. how do you make vitamin D?
> >3. How do you get skin cancer?
> >4. how do plants get energy from the sun?
> >5. How can you see?
>
> I really meant that sunlight striking the body does not cause the
> reproductive apparatus to function.

Wrong again. The function of the reproductive apparatus in most living
things is affected by sunlight. (Hint: what triggers seasonal reproductive
cycles?)

Evidence Derek Stevenson 6/4/01 6:50 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b171c3e.11146865@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 20:59:41 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:

[snip]

> > And who are these reliable
> >witnesses over 2000  years that have met this Jesus God?
>
> the widely varied people who put down their

even more widely varied

> experience with God in
> writing, and over thousands of years.  Down at this end of our time,
> we have gathered all these various writings together, examined them
> and bound them into a single volume called the Bible.

I think you mean "a small group of people from a particular tradition have
gathered together an extremely small, vaguely consistent subset of these
writings, rejected some and collected others, and indentified the resulting
collection as 'the Bible'."

> As a result of
> such a thorough search for any mention of the one true God, there is
> no longer any "extra-Biblical" evidence to be found to add to the
> c...

Evidence Derek Stevenson 6/4/01 6:50 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b19445a.27303751@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 2 Jun 2001 11:58:31 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>

> wrote:
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b18f1a9.6130927@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> >> And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
> >> saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
> >> presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
> >> reactions.
> >
> >For the nth time: the genetic code is not a reaction. It is a code.
>
> habits are hard to shake -- I really must become more precise in my
> language, at least here on T.O.

No, you must become more precise in your knowledge and in what you do with
it.

Accomplish that, and precision in language will follow.

[snip]

Evidence Derek Stevenson 6/4/01 7:00 AM
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:IJhS6.2476$v4.110281@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <3b19a079....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
> >On 2 Jun 2001 20:21:43 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >>In article <3b19807a....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
> >>>On 2 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
> >>>wrote:

> >>>>they've found the existence of 2LoT in black holes?  Or they have
> >>>>incorporated 2LoT into their theory of black holes?
> >>>
> >>>yes, they have. stephen hawking, among others, has discovered that the
> >>>increase in surface areas of black holes is related to their entropy.
> >>>
> >>He must have a damn long arm, or has one in his pocket.
> >
> >you dont know who hawking is, do you?
> >
> Isn't he the basketball player with the long arms?
> >
> Or your "god"?

I've been meaning to ask -- why are you inserting ">" characters between
lines in your replies? It makes your pos...

Evidence Derek Stevenson 6/4/01 7:10 AM
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b170ba9.6901626@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 31 May 2001 13:51:29 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

[snip]

> >What part of cows eating plants has a positive deltaG? And you will have
to
> >support this with math, I'm afraid.
>
> I can't support that with math, I'm afraid -- unless I go read some
> more -- and guess what, I'm not up to it at 11:35 p.m. -- how do all
> you tireless minds on T.O. do it?

The process of posting to t.o. generally involves at least three steps:
"acquire information", "think about information" and "report on or speculate
about information".

Ensuring that all of the steps are followed, and that this is done in the
order above, helps enormously.

You might want to try it, just for a change.

[snip]

> >>> Then we eat the cows
> >
> >>non-spontaneous activity,
> >
> >What part?
>
> you choose to eat vegetables or cow or nothing at all -- all decisions
> made over and above any natural ...

Evidence muju51 6/4/01 7:20 AM
In article <thn4g44...@news.supernews.com>, Derek Stevenson says...What is so incorrect about referring to the formation...
Evidence muju51 6/4/01 7:30 AM
In article <thn520j...@news.supernews.com>, Derek Stevenson says...

>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:IJhS6.2476$v4.110281@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3b19a079....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>> >On 2 Jun 2001 20:21:43 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>> >>In article <3b19807a....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>> >>>On 2 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>> >>>wrote:
>
>> >>>>they've found the existence of 2LoT in black holes?  Or they have
>> >>>>incorporated 2LoT into their theory of black holes?
>> >>>
>> >>>yes, they have. stephen hawking, among others, has discovered that the
>> >>>increase in surface areas of black holes is related to their entropy.
>> >>>
>> >>He must have a damn long arm, or has one in his pocket.
>> >
>> >you dont know who hawking is, do you?
>> >
>> Isn't he the basketball player with the long arms?
>> >
>> Or your "god"?
>
>I've been meanin...
Evidence leonardo dasso 6/4/01 9:25 AM

newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:jJMS6.3736$v4.176824@www.newsranger.com...

> In article <thn4g44...@news.supernews.com>, Derek Stevenson says...
> >
> >"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b19445a.27303751@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >> On 2 Jun 2001 11:58:31 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3b18f1a9.6130927@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >
> >> >> And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
> >> >> saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
> >> >> presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
> >> >> reactions.
> >> >
> >> >For the nth time: the genetic code is not a reaction. It is a code.
> >>
> >> habits are hard to shake -- I really must become more precise in my
> >> language, at least here on T.O.
> >
> >No, you must become more precise in your knowledge and in...
Evidence Noelie S. Alito 6/4/01 9:55 AM
"Chris Ho-Stuart" <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3b1ac21b@news.qut.edu.au...
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> >>Here are a few. The blink reflex.
> >
> > a reflex is not an instinct.
>
> I could be hard to make a hard line of difference here, but I
> see that some have tried.
>
> Here are three examples:
>   The kick reflex when your knee is hit at the right place.
>   The blink reflex.
>   The rooting reflex of a baby seeking the nipple.
>
> I consider that "instinct" *is* a kind of reflex; but one
> that operates indirectly, and specifically through the
> brain. To be instinctive, the stimulus recognition should
> require some level of information processing in the brain,
> and the response should come as a result of that processing.
>
<snip>

Would you consider people's requirement that concepts and
attributes be assigned to distinct classifications a "reflex" or
an "instinct"?

Noelie
--
Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious a...

Evidence lenny 6/4/01 10:05 AM
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3b1b07a1.231363186@news.ptdprolog.net...

> On 3 Jun 2001 22:23:36 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> >[smip]
> >> while chris and i disagree on instinct, thats a disagreement easy to
> >> resolve if any of us found evidence for or against instinct. one of us
> >> is wrong.
> >
> >Part of the disagreement may be on definitions. It looks a bit like
> >you are using the word "instinct" in a rather idiosyncratic way. I
> >don't really understand why you don't consider to rooting reflex of
> >infants to be an instinct.
>
> because its a reflex...i am using both the definition i remember from
> by undergrad days, and the definition of the harcourt science
> dictionary.

For what it's worth David MaFarland devotes several pages to instinct in
*Animal Behaviour* (1985, Pitman Publishing Ltd.) and it seems to be a
complex subject without a firm definition.  He is clear that the classical
ethological vi...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/4/01 10:40 AM

>c...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/4/01 12:55 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b19445a.27303751@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 2 Jun 2001 11:58:31 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b18f1a9.6130927@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >[snip].

> >>
> >> And it is the particular system of the genetic code that I am here
> >> saying had to exist before 2LoT, otherwise it could not form in the
> >> presence of entropy.  It is an example of nonspontaneous chemical
> >> reactions.
> >
> >For the nth time: the genetic code is not a reaction. It is a code.
>
> habits are hard to shake -- I really must become more precise in my
> language, at least here on T.O.
>
> I meant that the SYSTEM of replication that contains the genetic code

> is an example of nonspontaneous chemical reactions.
>
> --
> zoe
>

Your problem is not a matter of precision of language, it is just ignorance
about what you are talking about.

Listen for t...

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/4/01 4:05 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2001 13:01:57 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
[snip]

>>For what it's worth David MaFarland devotes several pages to instinct in
>>*Animal Behaviour* (1985, Pitman Publishing Ltd.) and it seems to be a
>>complex subject without a firm definition.  He is clear that the classical
>>ethological view is currently regarded as unacceptable.  He does make the
>>following distinction between fixed-action patterns and reflexes (attributed
>>to Lorenz): fixed action patterns can be released by a variety of stimuli,
>>whereas reflexes are elicited by specific stimuli; whereas animals are
>>motivated to perform fixed-action patterns, this is not true of reflexes;
>>unlike reflexes, fixed-action patterns can occur in the absence of external
>>stimulation and are then called vacuum activities.  MacFarland then blithely
>>goes on to explain that even these points are disputed now--for example the
>>startle reflex occurs in response to a variety of stimuli.  Clear as mud.
>
> and its beginning to look like we on this group are converging on the
> same idea...perhaps the idea of 'instinct' isnt all that useful...

I have not got to a library yet, but a little goggle turned up
a relevant data point, from the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
   <http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=151281>

This is interesting, because it provides 4 different definitions,
and has a fair bit of discussion on confusions and nebulous concepts
which are sometimes associated with the term.

   instinct

   A term with a tortured history indeed. The root is Latin,
   instinctus meaning instigated or impelled, with the implication
   that such impulses are natural or innate. There are four general,
   distinguishable meanings of the term:

   1.  An unlearned response characteristic of the members of a given
       species.

   2.  A tendency or disposition to respond in a particular manner that
       is characteristic of a particular species. This disposition (2)
       is the presumed underpinning for the observed behavior (1).

   3.  A complex, coordinated set of acts found universally or nearly
       so within a given species that emerges under specific stimulus
       conditions, specific drive conditions and specific developmental
       conditions. This meaning is found primarily in ethology; see,
       e.g., innate releasing mechanism, fixed action pattern and
       related entries.

   4.  Any of a number of unlearned, inherited tendencies that are
       hypothesized to function as the motivational forces behind complex
       human behaviors. This sense, of course, is that expressed by
       classical psychoanalysis.

   In actual use, the manner of application of the term...

Evidence Thomas Griffin 6/4/01 4:45 PM

zoe_althrop wrote:

> On 1 Jun 2001 11:58:05 -0400, Thomas Griffin <tgri...@uic.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> >snip>
> >>
> >> your doubt is killing you.
> >
> >Hey, don't assume that everyone is as miserable as you and so pathetically
> >frightened and insecure about their place in the cosmos that they need to convince
> >themselves of ridulous fairytales to feel their lives have meaning and purpose.
> >I am one of the most sincerely happy and centered people I know,
>
> personally, I feel that someone who goes about so suspicious and
> distrustful of his fellow human beings cannot be truly happy or
> centered.  This sounds more like paranoia to me.

Do think that infants are capable of flying a plane? Would you get on an infant driven
plane?
No, of course not.   Does this make you paranoid?  No, it makes you rational. It means
you acknowledge the obvious facts, and respond accordingly.   Does it mean that your
unhappy b/c you can't "trust" nearly all of the infants in the world to fly an airplane
properly. No. It just means that you do not rely on them to do so.

Well, the same holds true for eyewitness testimony. I don't assume people are always
lying. I simply assume that the reality of perception, human memory, and the
understandable emotional human motives make eyewitness testimony unreliable.
The case of eyewitnesses to Jesus God is a particularly extreme one b/c there is very
good reason to think that everyone of these factors exerted a distorting influence.

Speaking of paranoia: What do you call it whe...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/4/01 5:47 PM
On 4 Jun 2001 19:00:30 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>> and its beginning to look like we on this group are converging on the
>> same idea...perhaps the idea of 'instinct' isnt all that useful...
>
>I have not got to a library yet, but a little goggle turned up
>a relevant data point, from the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
>   <http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=151281>
>
>
>   The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, (c) Arthur S. Reber 1995
>
>I am not presenting this because I endorse it -- I am sufficiently
>unqualified that my endorsement would be meaningless anyway.
>
>Cheers -- Chris
>
'tis the case for me as well. perhaps we've gotten into a morass from
which the only escape is to recognize the term 'instinct' is too vague
to be useful...

Evidence Gyudon Z 6/4/01 6:50 PM
From newbie:

>In article <20010604012318.12008.00001256@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From wf3h:
>>
>>>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
>>>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
>>>>
>>>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
>>>
>>>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
>>>characterization of instinct.
>>
>>Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?
>>
>>Anyway, a reflex is more of a simple, immediate, and subconscious response.
>An
>>instinct is a little more complicated and engages more neurons, although I
>>don't know a good neuron cutoff point.
>>
>Do you have a reference to where this idea arose?

The definition of reflex in my biology text makes the invocation of only a few
neurons specific. The definitions for instinct can be found all over the
thread.

>Are reflexes differentiated
>from instincts because of the amount of neurons involved?

Am...

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/4/01 8:35 PM
Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> From wf3h:
>>
>>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
>>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
>>>
>>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
>>
>>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
>>characterization of instinct.
>
> Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?

My humble apologies!

As a constructive suggestion for reducing confusion, why don't
you call yourself "Chris", like everyone else?

Cheers -- Chris
--
(PS. <http://www.ediacara.org/fac97.html>)

Evidence Chris Ho-Stuart 6/4/01 8:45 PM
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2001 19:00:30 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]

>>I have not got to a library yet, but a little goggle turned up
>>a relevant data point, from the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
>>   <http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=151281>
>>
>>
>>   The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, (c) Arthur S. Reber 1995
>>
>>I am not presenting this because I endorse it -- I am sufficiently
>>unqualified that my endorsement would be meaningless anyway.
>>
>>Cheers -- Chris
>>
> 'tis the case for me as well. perhaps we've gotten into a morass from
> which the only escape is to recognize the term 'instinct' is too vague
> to be useful...

I just got back from my promised visit to the library. The
escape clause you propose also appears in most of the books
which I scanned. The term "instinct" has (apparently) fallen
out of favour; or is basically fraught with confusion. None
of the books I found placed a sharp dividing line between
human behaviour and animal behaviour.

Here is one example: [ all emphasis taken verbatim from original,
where emphasis was supplied by use of italics ]

  "Animal Behavi...

Evidence wilkins 6/4/01 9:35 PM
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

If we're gonna go back to that, then I reserve the right to be the
Anti-Chris this time around...
--
John (Anti-Chris) Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and
Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotte...

Evidence muju51 6/4/01 10:20 PM
In article <20010604214500.18989.00001090@ng-fi1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...>>from instincts because of the amount of neurons invo...
Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/5/01 7:50 AM
On 4 Jun 2001 23:44:09 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> On 4 Jun 2001 19:00:30 -0400, Chris Ho-Stuart
>> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>I have not got to a library yet, but a little goggle turned up
>>>a relevant data point, from the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
>>>   <http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=151281>
>>>
>>>
>>>   The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, (c) Arthur S. Reber 1995
>>>
>>>I am not presenting this because I endorse it -- I am sufficiently
>>>unqualified that my endorsement would be meaningless anyway.
>>>
>>>Cheers -- Chris
>>>
>> 'tis the case for me as well. perhaps we've gotten into a morass from
>> which the only escape is to recognize the term 'instinct' is too vague
>> to be useful...
>
>I just got back from my promised visit to the library. The
>escape clause you propose also appears in most of the books
>which I scanned.

whew!! :-)

>
>  Misconceptions about Instincts and Lear...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/5/01 4:35 PM
In article <1euj9io.11gdxscusshx8N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
 wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:

> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > From wf3h:
> > >>
> > >>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
> > >>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
> > >>>
> > >>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
> > >>
> > >>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
> > >>characterization of instinct.
> > >
> > > Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?
> >
> > My humble apologies!
> >
> > As a constructive suggestion for reducing confusion, why don't
> > you call yourself "Chris", like everyone else?
> >
> > Cheers -- Chris
> > --
> > (PS. <http://www.ediacara.org/fac97.html>)
>
> If we're gonna go back to that, then I reserve the right to be the
> Anti-Chris this time around...

I thought you aussies were all called "...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/5/01 7:00 PM

> >*Animal Behaviour* (1985, Pitman Publishing Ltd.) and it see...

Evidence wilkins 6/5/01 7:50 PM
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

> In article <1euj9io.11gdxscusshx8N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
>  wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > From wf3h:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
> > > >>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
> > > >>
> > > >>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
> > > >>characterization of instinct.
> > > >
> > > > Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?
> > >
> > > My humble apologies!
> > >
> > > As a constructive suggestion for reducing confusion, why don't
> > > you call yourself "Chris", like everyone else?
> > >
> > > Cheers -- Chris
> > > --
> > > (PS. <http://www.ediacara.org/fac97.html>)
> >
> > If we're gonna go back...

Evidence Jonathan Stone 6/5/01 8:00 PM
In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-21F84A.19332105062001@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

Andrew Glasgow  <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <1euj9io.11gdxscusshx8N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> If we're gonna go back to that, then I reserve the right to be the
>> Anti-Chris this time around...
>
>I thought you aussies were all called "Bruce"?

Nah mate, thats just the philosophers.
You dont find too many sheilas called Bruce, either.

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/5/01 9:17 PM
In article <3b19a079....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net wrote:

> On 2 Jun 2001 20:21:43 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b19807a....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
> >>
> >>On 2 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 1 Jun 2001 23:03:52 -0400, David Ewan Kahana
> >>><kah...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>> I've no
> >>>>proof or argument to support the truth or falsehood of that
> >>>>proposition, but the second law has turned up in some unexpected
> >>>>ways in the study of black holes.
> >>>
> >>>they've found the existence of 2LoT in black holes?  Or they have
> >>>incorporated 2LoT into their theory of black holes?
> >>
> >>yes, they have. stephen hawking, among others, has discovered that the
> >>increase in surface areas of black holes is related to their entropy.
> >>
> >He must have a damn long arm, or has one in his pocket.
> >
>
> you dont know who hawking is...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/5/01 9:55 PM
In article <1eukv4h.nhsfg9n1fkw3N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
 wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:

> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > In article <1euj9io.11gdxscusshx8N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
> >  wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > From wf3h:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a red
> > > > >>>dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree? (I would.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
> > > > >>characterization of instinct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?
> > > >
> > > > My humble apologies!
> > > >
> > > > As a constructive suggestion for reducing confusion, why don't
> > > > you call yourself "Chr...

Evidence wilkins 6/5/01 10:05 PM
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

> In article <1eukv4h.nhsfg9n1fkw3N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
>  wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1euj9io.11gdxscusshx8N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
> > >  wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > From wf3h:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull at a
> > > > > >>>red dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would you agree?
> > > > > >>>(I would.)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting reflex?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with my
> > > > > >>characterization of instinct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who the hell is guydon and why does everyone think he's me?
> > > > >
> > > > > My humbl...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/5/01 10:35 PM
In article <1eul5ny.1guvb981v466f4N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
 wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:

> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > In article <1eukv4h.nhsfg9n1fkw3N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
> >  wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1euj9io.11gdxscusshx8N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>,
> > > >  wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > From wf3h:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>Guydon Z previously cited the picking of a baby seagull
> > > > > > >>>at a red dot on its parent's beak as an instinct. Would
> > > > > > >>>you agree? (I would.)
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>How do you distinguish this from the human rooting
> > > > > > >>>reflex?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>guydon also stated his bio book agrees, essentially, with
> > > > > > >>my charact...

Evidence(repost) muju51 6/7/01 6:50 PM
In article <F1GQ6.3248$rn5.1...@www.newsranger.com>, newbie says...

wf3h is a liar.

Repost:

>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>>evolved instinct.
>>
>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>
>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>>
>>>>
>>>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>>>unfalsifiable to them.
>>
>>since you're wrong ab...

Evidence(repost) wf...@ptd.net 6/7/01 7:05 PM
On 7 Jun 2001 21:46:24 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <F1GQ6.3248$rn5.1...@www.newsranger.com>, newbie says...
>
>wf3h is a liar.
>
>Repost:

says the creationist.

res ipso loquitur.

Evidence(repost) muju51 6/7/01 7:25 PM
In article <3b203206...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...Responds the evolutionist to the evidence of his lies.

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:00 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 18:35:18 -0400, Jon Fleming
<jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:

>>
>>snip>
>>>Ah.  Now I understand what you mean by "spontaneous".  Sadly, your
>>>definition is meaningless.  
>>
>>why is it meaningless?  "To understand" means to see meaning in an
>>explanation.  Maybe what you mean is, "ah, now I understand, but I
>>don't agree"?  Why don't you agree?  
>
>Well, I suppose it has some meaning in some sense, but I contend that
>it has no use.  "... any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease" is
>useless because:
>
>1.  "Abnormal is not quantitatively defined.
>

why do you think it is not?  If you know what normal is -- an increase
in entropy -- then "abnormal" is automatically defined -- a decrease
in entropy; is it not?  Why do you need it to be further defined
"quantitatively"?

>2.  There is no apparent reason for the qualification "without any
>intervening abnormal decrease" or, deleting the unquantified term,
>"any intervening decrease".  Note that entropy is a state variable;
>the entropy of a system _does_ _not_ _depend_ on how the system got to
>its current state.  That is, the final entropy is independent of
>whether or not the entropy (or any other quantity) increased or
>decreased or stayed the same during the reaction.  It's like
>temperature; the temperature of a system depends only on current
>conditions, not how hot or cold the system has been in the past.
>

I agree that knowing starting conditions and ending conditions is
necessary in order to determine if entropy has increased or decreased.
But 2LoT seems to state that increase in entropy is the norm, so that,
with this understanding in mind, once the calculations are made based
on beginning and ending states, it can be determined whether there was
an increase in entropy in the system (which is normal under 2LoT) or
whether there was a decrease in entropy (which is abnormal under
2LoT).  

Decrease in entropy, from what I understand, is evidence of the
presence of a system that reverses 2LoT for a time and space, and this
reversing system invariably is one that does not arise spontaneously
but requires the application of energy beyond the norm.

>3.  For the life of me, I can't see what use this defintion of
>"spontaneous" has in terms of classifying reactions or making
>predicitons.  How about listing a dozen or so reactions and
>classifying them as spontaneous or not spontaneous using this
>definition?
>

evaporation - spontaneous
refrigeration - nonspontaneous
crystal formation - spontaneous
DNA formation - nonspontaneous
osmosis - spontaneous
chemiosmosis - nonspontaneous
equilibrium - spontaneous
atmospheric pauses - nonspontaneous (mesopause, tropopause, etc.)
increase in entropy - spontaneous
decrease in entropy - nonspontaneous
gravity - spontaneous
rocket flight - nonspontaneous
particles/waves - spontaneous
harnessed electricity - nonspontaneous

>>
>>>See David Kahana's post on Gibbs free
>>>energy in this thread.  
>>
>>I did read David's post and replied to it, after which I went to
>>lunch.  That was at 12:30 p.m.  It is now 3:30 p.m., and I see that my
>>response to him did not make it through.
>>
>>>It will take some study and effort to
>>>understand, but the explanation is there.
>>>
>>
>>explanation for what?
>
>Why entropy is not useful in classifying chemical reactions.
>

chemical equilibrium explains why entropy is useless as a means of
classifying chemical reactions?  Please elaborate.  

>> Certainly not an explanation for how positive
>>free energy
>
>All free energy is postive.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE
>ENERGY.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE ENERGY.  THERE IS NO
>SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE ENERGY.  NEVER USE THE PHRASE "POSITIVE
>FREE ENERGY".
>

okay, don't yell now.  I'll drop the use of the term
"negative/positive free energy" -- at least with you, Jon.  This was
the term used in one particular article that I read.  But maybe they
are wrong.

How about exergonic energy (spontaneous) and endergonic energy
(nonspontaneous)?

>>decreases entropy,
>
>That's because changes in free energy may or may not decrease or
>increase entropy.  Talking about how changes in free energy decreases
>or increases  entropy is meaningless except in particular cases.  

okay, shall we get to particular cases?  Like the "battery" system of
the cell -- ATP?

>To
>be able to understand those cases and talk about it, YOU'VE GOT TO DO
>THE MATH.  Talking about how "positive free enrgy decreases entropy"
>is meaninfless because the phrase "positive free energy decreases
>entropy" is meaniungless.
>
>>which is what my thread is addressing.
>>It seems to me that David spent a lot of time giving, admittedly, a
>>very valuable explanation of entropy at equilibrium, but I'm really
>>interested in the modification of conditions at a level above
>>equilibrium.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "above equilibrium", since "above" is a
>spatial relationship but "equilibriu...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:15 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 15:57:34 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

>From Zoe Althrop:
snip>
>>>
>>>>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>>>>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>>>>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.  
>>>
>>>Define abnormal.
>
>>oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.
>
>So you mean "spontaneous"? Or perhaps "not thermionically coupled"?
>

no, decrease in entropy is not spontaneous, I don't think.  "Abnormal"
would be more like thermionically coupled, if I am understanding that
term correctly.

>>It is
>>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
>>like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
>>must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
>>two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.
>
>The which reasons overlook the possibility of thermionic coupling and are
>therefore built on a mistaken premise.
>

it is the nonspontaneous part of the thermionic coupling that
interests me.

snip>
>
>DNA owes much of its stability and usefulness to its crystalline structure, and
>as you said above the formation of crystals is not abnormal.
>

I would consider the formation of crys...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:20 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 16:52:03 -0400, George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com>
wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:


>>
>> On 2 Jun 2001 14:32:08 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>>
>> >From Zoe Althrop:
>>
>> >
>> >>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
>> >>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>> >>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.
>> >
>> >Define abnormal.
>> >
>>
>> oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is

>> abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>> for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>> entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
>> like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
>> must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
>> two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.
>>
>You seem to be operating on a syllogism that goes:
>
>    If we cannot demonstr...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:25 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 17:39:16 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>George Acton wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be operating on a syllogism that goes:
>>
>>     If we cannot demonstrate Divine violation of standard physical
>>       laws, then God does not exist.
>>
>>     The origin of life is such a violation..
>>
>>     Therefore, God exists.
>>
>
>I think zoe_althrop is operating with this syllogism (sillygism):
>
>     If we can demonstrate that a violation of standard physical
>       laws has occurred, then God exists.
>
>     The origin of life is such a violation..
>
>     Therefore, God must exist.
>

not really.  Demonstrating that the replication system formed before
2LoT kicked in can go in either direction.  For the evolutionist, it
can say that evolution of nonspontaneous systems more reasonably
occurred before the 2LoT.  For the believer in God, it can say that
there is an answer for how a nonspontaneous system arose in the first
place.

>> The problem is that you d...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:30 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 17:52:48 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 15:47:48 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
>>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  
>
>'Intervention'?
>

doesn't it take intelligent intervention to manufacture a refrigerator
that serves to decrease entropy?  Likewise with any system that is
created to reverse the effects of 2LoT -- or in the case of nature, to
create a system that functions, albeit imperfectly anymore, in spite
of 2LoT?

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:30 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 19:40:08 -0400, Jon Fleming
<jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 15:47:48 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>
><snip>


>
>> It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
>>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.
>
>I suspect you are misunderstanding, depending on exactly what you mean
>by "intervention".  There are many ways that entropy of a system can
>decrease, many of them "natural" processes that occur spontaneously.
>

is the "battery" system of the cell -- ADP and ATP -- spontaneous or
nonspontaneous?  Just because it is occurring in nature does not mean
that the process is automatically classified as spontaneous, imo.

snip>
--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:40 PM
On 2 Jun 2001 16:28:48 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

snip>
>
>Your problem is not a matter of precision of language, it is sheer ignorance
>about what you are talking about.
>
>Listen for the n+1th time:
>
>1. A SYSTEM IS NOT A REACTION: IT IS A SYSTEM.

the system consists of reactions.  Is that better?

>2. A system may participate in reactions,

a system consists of reactions; it doesn't participate in them, imo.

>but the system is NOT A REACTION,

heard you the first time.  The system consists of reactions.

>in the same way that a blendor is not the same as the process of blending.
>For blending bananas you have to plug the blender in and turn it on, but you
>can have the blender sitting on the bench doing nothing, and that doesnt
>require plugging it in.

and the moment you plug it in and press the blend button, the system
reacts?  Hmmmm, maybe a system is a reaction after all?

>3.The genetic code DOES NOT OPERATE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLICATION.

rep...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 4:55 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:26 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

snip>
>>>You equate "free energy" with the energy that is involved in pushing a
>>>rock uphill.
>
>>no, I equated POSITIVE free energy as the energy involved in pushing a
>>rock uphill.
>
>Ok, that's what you said. Am I correct in understanding that positive
>free energy (as in potential energy) to energy that is able to perform
>work? If that is indeed the case, please explain where the energy
>generated by hydro plants comes from. You will, I hope, agree that the
>electrical power of a hydro plant is a form of positive free energy.
>

I would think that the electrical power of a hydro plant would fall
into the category of free energy, but the energy expended in the
creation of the hydro plant itself would fall into the category of
postive free energy.

>[snip]
>>>In your response you introduce "spontaneous reactions".
>>>Whether evaporation of water is a spontaneous reaction of an open body
>>>of water to heating or not (however you like to define spontaneous)
>>>does not change the fact that it is still an example of mass being
>>>...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 5:05 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:

snip>
>
>This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
>source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
>direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
>absence of an energy source.

and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?

>  Some of that stored energy is available for
>work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is 'wasted',
>so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
>

I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.  I am
saying that in the presence of 2LoT, certain nonspontaneous systems
will not form spontaneously, and since 2LoT will not be violated,
these nonspontaneous systems had to form before 2LoT.

--
zoe

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/9/01 5:10 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 18:58:43 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 18:35:18 -0400, Jon Fleming
><jo...@nospam.fleming-group.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>snip>
>>>>Ah.  Now I understand what you mean by "spontaneous".  Sadly, your
>>>>definition is meaningless.  
>>>
>>>why is it meaningless?  "To understand" means to see meaning in an
>>>explanation.  Maybe what you mean is, "ah, now I understand, but I
>>>don't agree"?  Why don't you agree?  
>>
>>Well, I suppose it has some meaning in some sense, but I contend that
>>it has no use.  "... any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
>>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease" is
>>useless because:
>>
>>1.  "Abnormal is not quantitatively defined.
>>
>
>why do you think it is not?  If you know what normal is -- an increase
>in entropy -

No.  In some situations entropy decreases, in some situations entropy
decreases.  "Normal" is defined as "Functioning or occurring in a
natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies" which
means that both increases and decreases in entropy are normal,
depending on the situation.

You appear to be just slinging words without any idea of their
meanings.

>then "abnormal" is automatically defined -- a decrease
>in entropy; is it not?

If your premise of the definition of normal is true, then it is.  But
your premise is false.  So the conclusion is also false.

>Why do you need it to be further defined
>"quantitatively"?

Because you used it as an adverb, modifying the verb "decrease".  It
cannot mean "decrease" in that context - that's another reason why you
claim that "abnormal" means "decrease" is false.  Not only did you use
it as a modifier, you capitalized the entire word, which increases the
emphasis.

So, given that "ABNORMAL decrease" does not mean "DECREASE decrease",
what does it mean?

>
>>2.  There is no apparent reason for the qualification "without any
>>intervening abnormal decrease" or, deleting the unquantified term,
>>"any intervening decrease".  Note that entropy is a state variable;
>>the entropy of a system _does_ _not_ _depend_ on how the system got to
>>its current state.  That is, the final entropy is independent of
>>whether or not the entropy (or any other quantity) increased or
>>decreased or stayed the same during the reaction.  It's like
>>temperature; the temperature of a system depends only on current
>>conditions, not how hot or cold the system has been in the past.
>>
>
>I agree that knowing starting conditions and ending conditions is
>necessary in order to determine if entropy has increased or decreased.
>But 2LoT seems to state that increase in entropy is the norm

No, it does not.  You DO NOT HAVE THE MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SECOND LAW.  Increase in entropy is the norm FOR ISOLATED SYSTEMS THAT
DO NOT INTERACT WITH THEIR SURROUNDINGS.  Since living things interact
with their surroundings, an increase in entropy is *****NOT****
(necessarily) the norm for living things.  Since the entire Earth
interacts with its surroundings (by receiving sunlight, and increase
in entropy is ****NOT*** (necessarily) the norm for the Earth.

If you wish to argue that the entropy of the Earth or living things
decreases in any particular situation, you are going to have to DEFINE
THE SITUATION, then SET UP THE EQUATIONS, the SOLVE THE EQUATIONS.
There's no shortcut.

>so that,
>with this understanding

Since your understanding is incorrect, anything you derive from that
understanding is WRONG.

>in mind, once the calculations are made based
>on beginning and ending states, it can be determined whether there was
>an increase in entropy in the system (which is normal under 2LoT)

No, it depends on the situation.  Entropy can increase or decrease.
Either is normal.

>or
>whether there was a decrease in entropy (which is abnormal under
>2LoT).

No.    It depends on the situation.  Entropy can increase or decrease.
Either is normal.

>
>Decrease in entropy, from what I understand, is evidence of the
>presence of a system that reverses 2LoT for a time and space,

No.  It is evidence of the presence of a system in which entropy
decreases.  Decreasing entropy is normal and not unusual.

>and this
>reversing system invariably is one that does not arise spontaneously
>but requires the application of energy beyond the norm.

Well, maybe almost correct but, given that you don't have the vaguest
idea of what thermodynamics and the Second Law _are_, I suspect you
are misinterpreting.

If entropy decreases within a system, there are several possibilities.

1.  Energy was added to the system.  This is common, and happens
naturally and spontaneously all the time.  Sunlight striking the Earth
adds energy to the Earth.

2.  Entropy was removed from the system.  THis also is natural and
happens all the time, but it's a little more difficult to illustrate
than the previous possibility.

Finally, entropy can be _rearranged_ within a system so that some part
of the system has LESS entropy than it did before and the rest of the
system has MORE entropy than it did before.

>
>>3.  For the life of me, I can't see what use this defintion of
>>"spontaneous" has in terms of classifying reactions or making
>>predicitons.  How about listing a dozen or so reactions and
>>classifying them as spontaneous or not spontaneous using this
>>definition?
>>
>
>evaporation - spontaneous
>refrigeration - nonspontaneous
>crystal formation - spontaneous
>DNA formation - nonspontaneous
>osmosis - spontaneous
>chemiosmosis - nonspontaneous
>equilibrium - spontaneous
>atmospheric pauses - nonspontaneous (mesopause, tropopause, etc.)
>increase in entropy - spontaneous
>decrease in entropy - nonspontaneous

Wrong.

>gravity - spontaneous
>rocket flight - nonspontaneous
>particles/waves - spontaneous
>harnessed electricity - nonspontaneous

OK, you provided what I asked for, but it's pretty useless.  I was
hoping that I could detect a pattern in the list from which I could
determine a useful definition.  However, I can't see any pattern in
the list.

How about providing  an "operational definition" that allows me to
unambiguously determine whether something is spontaneous or
nonspontaneous without referring to you?

>
>>>
>>>>See David Kahana's post on Gibbs free
>>>>energy in this thread.  
>>>
>>>I did read David's post and replied to it, after which I went to
>>>lunch.  That was at 12:30 p.m.  It is now 3:30 p.m., and I see that my
>>>response to him did not make it through.
>>>
>>>>It will take some study and effort to
>>>>understand, but the explanation is there.
>>>>
>>>
>>>explanation for what?
>>
>>Why entropy is not useful in classifying chemical reactions.
>>
>
>chemical equilibrium explains why entropy is useless as a means of
>classifying chemical reactions?  Please elaborate.

David already did.  There's not much to add to what he said.  Study it
some more.


 
>
>>> Certainly not an explanation for how positive
>>>free energy
>>
>>All free energy is postive.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE
>>ENERGY.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE ENERGY.  THERE IS NO
>>SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE FREE ENERGY.  NEVER USE THE PHRASE "POSITIVE
>>FREE EN...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/9/01 5:15 PM
On 1 Jun 2001 13:59:48 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>snip>
>
>If the system is receiving energy from outside it, yes. It happens all the
>time. Fridges make things colder, therefore reducing entropy. They need
>energy to work, that is why you have to plug them in.
>
>

take note of the type of nonspontaneous energy required in
refrigeration and in sources that can be plugged into.  I know you are
not saying that the presence of sunlight will cause refrigerators to
form.  So what are you really saying?
snip>
>
>You are not trying to understand. The second law of thermodynamics can't be
>reversed: it is a law.
>

I don't think I'm saying that 2LoT can be reversed.  I am saying
entropy can be reversed.

>
>>
>> >> > synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
>> >> >carbon sources in the plant.
>> >>
>> >> would you consider the movement of ions into a compartment against its
>> >> concentration gradient to be spontaneous?
>> >
>> >Depends of course on how you define your system. The pumping of protons
>out
>> >of the mitochondria for instance is spontaneous if you define your system
>> >including the whole mitochondria, ie with the respiratory chain included,
>> >because the oxidation of the electron carriers supplies more than enough
>> >energy to drive the protons out. On the other hand if you define your
>system
>> >leaving the respiratory chain out, then it would not be spontaneous. But
>> >when you include exergonic and endergonic reactions in the system of
>course
>> >the result has to be exergonic, ie, spontaneous, otherwise it would not
>> >happen. Everything that happens is spontaneous by definition.
>> >
>>
>> and it is this very type of reasoning upon which macroevolution rests.
>> Rationalize to the point where laws like 2LoT are done away with in
>> order to hang onto a cherished belief.
>
>Up until now you were just parading your  ignorance in a rather humble and
>polite way.

is there such a thing as "parading" ignorance in a humble way?  At any
rate, humility and polititude is directed only towards posters, NOT
towards the rickety concept of macroevolution...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/9/01 5:20 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 19:12:41 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:
<snip>
>okay, I'll try to learn the mathematical angle.  Do you want to share
>this simple equation with me, or not?  
>
>Is it the one that says deltaS=q/T, where deltaS is the change in
>entropy and if you know what q (heat/energy) is and what T (absolute
>temperature -- why absolute?) is, then you can determine whether
>entropy has increased or decreased?
>I guess there's too much English in the above.  Repeat:  deltaS=q/T.??

I don't know if that's the equation Guydon meant, chemistry isn't
really my thing.

However, note that in the equation deltaS=q/T T is always positive but
"q" may be positive or negative.  Therefore, deltaS may be positive or
negative.


--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/9/01 5:30 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 20:00:58 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
>>source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
>>direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
>>absence of an energy source.
>
>and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
>create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?

Sunlight does not create any systems. Sunlight drives the energy of
the system into which it shines to a higher level.  The mechanism by
which this happens varies depending on exactly what system you are
talking about.

>
>>  Some of that stored energy is available for
>>work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is 'wasted',
>>so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
>>
>
>I don't think I've said that there is an...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/9/01 6:45 PM
In article <3b22b04b...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

The production o...

Evidence lenny 6/9/01 6:45 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b22b716.42172380@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
> >source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
> >direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
> >absence of an energy source.
>
> and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
> create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?

I have no idea what you are even asking here.

> >  Some of that stored energy is available for
> >work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is
'wasted',
> >so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
> >
>
> I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.  I am
> saying that in the presence of 2LoT, certain nonspontaneous systems
> will not form spontaneously, and since 2LoT will not be violated,
> these nonspontaneous systems had to form before 2LoT.

And you have been told repeatedly be everyone and his uncle that you don't
know what you are talking about.  But don't let that stop you--it never
does.  What the hell is a non-spontaneous system?  You still don't
understand the difference between a system and a reaction do you?
I don't know why we keep trying to explain this to you.
Take a system composed of Hydrogen (H), Oxygen (O), and water(H2O).  This is
a simple system in which 2 reactions are possible:  2 H2 + ...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/9/01 6:50 PM
In article <3b22acdc...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

> >    If we cannot demonstrate Divine violation of standard physical
> >      laws, then God does not exist.
> >
> >    The origin of life is such a violation..
> >
> >    Therefore, God exists.
> >
>
> actually, the short-term goal of this ...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/9/01 6:55 PM
In article <3b22a99a...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

> you'll understand me only if I communicate in math-speak, Gyudon?  Or
> are you just throwing up language barriers to give me a hard time?

I think the main problem is that the vocabulary to adequately describe
thermodynamics problems does not exist in English.

--
|          Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu>         |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic.  There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods         |

Evidence Jonathan Stone 6/9/01 7:05 PM
In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-3975E4.21505509062001@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

Andrew Glasgow  <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <3b22a99a...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
>> you'll understand me only if I communicate in math-speak, Gyudon?  Or
>> are you just throwing up language barriers to give me a hard time?
>
>I think the main problem is that the vocabulary to adequately describe
>thermodynamics problems does not exist in English.

"Boltzmann entropy", "gibbs free energy", "delta-S"?

I would hazard a guess Zoe's problem isn't with English vocabulary but
a lack of basic understanding of the concepts.

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/9/01 7:05 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:26 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:

>>>>You equate "free energy" with the energy that is involved in pushing a
>>>>rock uphill.

>>>no, I equated POSITIVE free energy as the energy involved in pushing a
>>>rock uphill.

>>Ok, that's what you said. Am I correct in understanding that positive
>>free energy (as in potential energy) to energy that is able to perform
>>work? If that is indeed the case, please explain where the energy
>>generated by hydro plants comes from. You will, I hope, agree that the
>>electrical power of a hydro plant is a form of positive free energy.

>I would think that the electrical power of a hydro plant would fall
>into the category of free energy, but the energy expended in the
>creation of the hydro plant itself would fall into the category of
>postive free energy.

I'm not sure what your distinction in "postive free energy", "negative
free energry" and "neutral free energy" is supposed to be. An
explanation is welcome.

>>>"uphill" is not the point

>>It is exactly the point. *You* asserted that "The sun is not a
>>rock pusher". I claim, with arguments, that it is.

>>If you wish, I can do the calculations for you, but I have a distinct
>>feeling that doing so would be a waste of both my time and yours.

>please feel free to do the calculations.  Hopefully, they won't be
>wasted on me -- but surely, there are other posters to this thread who
>would understand you and get your point.

I'll dig into it. This may take a while, though, for I'll have to...

Evidence George Acton 6/9/01 8:10 PM
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 2 Jun 2001 16:52:03 -0400, George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2 Jun 2001 14:32:08 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> >>
> >> >From Zoe Althrop:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>that is not how I understand "spontaneous."  I understand
> >> >>"spontaneous" to mean any chemical reaction that occurs wherein
> >> >>entropy increases without any intervening ABNORMAL decrease.
> >> >
> >> >Define abnormal.
> >> >
> >>
> >> oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
> >> abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
> >> for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
> >> entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  However, a system
> >> like the one that contains the genetic code, the reproductive cycle,
> >> must have been in place before 2LoT began to operate.  Why?  For the
> >> two reasons I gave at the start of this thread.
> >>
> >You seem t...
Evidence zoe_althrop 6/10/01 12:10 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 21:49:06 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
<amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

snip>
>
>No, learn more until you do understand the laws.  Or stop attacking them
>and accept that maybe, just maybe, the people who have spent their lives
>studying these laws just might understand them a bit better than
>whatever creationist source first told you that the 2LoT contradicts
>evolution.
>

there is no creationist source that told me that 2LoT contradicts
evolution.  Besides, this thread has nothing to do with 2LoT
contradicting evolution.  It has to do with whether the replication
system that contains the genetic code arose before or after 2LoT was
in operation.  "After" has problems.  "Before" will allow the
evolutionist to evolve his replication system in the absence of 2LoT,
and will also allow the creationist to appreciate a system that was
created before 2LoT.  

>Zoe, please note that Lord Kelvin, one of the preeminent physicists of
>Darwin's day, was opposed to Evo...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/10/01 12:15 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 23:08:37 -0400, George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com>
wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
snip>
>>
>> I do believe that God exists, but this thread was only for the purpose
>> of establishing sequence for the replication cycle and the 2LoT.
>
>If the thread has no religious or theological motivation, I stand
>corrected.

my belief in God is always a motivation in the back of my mind for
whatever I do or say.  You can't escape that.  But, really, the
short-term goal of this thread was simply to establish sequence.

> It's now clear that it's based on your deep interest
>in thermodynamics and biochemistry.
>

lol -- that's putting it a little strongly.  I wouldn't exactly call
it "deep."  But enough of an interest to cause me to ask questions or
pose suggestions to the scholars on T.O.

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/10/01 12:30 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 22:02:20 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

snip>


>
>I'm not sure what your distinction in "postive free energy", "negative
>free energry" and "neutral free energy" is supposed to be. An
>explanation is welcome.
>

neutral free energy is that energy that is available as a supply, such
as the sunlight, or chemical energy, or nuclear energy, or
gravitational energy, or electromagnetic energy, or electrical energy,
or kinetic energy, or mass energy.

negative free energy is that energy that is lost to work and causes
entropy to increase.

positive free energy is that energy that is absorbed by a system to do
work and causes entropy to decrease in the system.

Positive free energy, as I understand it, is the type of energy that
does not arise spontaneously and thus requires an outside intervention
to set up the kind of system that decreases entropy, or that, when
faced with 2LoT, is able to reverse entropy for a certain time and
space.

snip>
>
>>I think you're passing over the creation of the hydro plant and
>>electrical appliance too quickly.
>
>I don't think so.
>
>I hope you understand that the energy a hydro plant takes from a
>river, would be just as available, when the hydro plant not there at
>all. The hydro plant essentially reroutes a part of the energy flow of
>the falling water, by making it perform work on the generators,
>instead of on the...

Evidence The Ghost In The Machine 6/10/01 1:05 PM
In talk.origins, wf...@ptd.net
<wf...@ptd.net>
 wrote
on 2 Jun 2001 22:40:52 -0400
<3b19a373....@news.ptdprolog.net>:

[snip]

>when you show a specific pattern of genetically programmed behaviors
>humans have then you'll have defined 'human instinct'. you havent.

Just out of curiosity: would the "swimming reflex" in babies count? :-)

(Of course, this is just one instance of "human instinct".  It's
not a definition, any more than saying "the sky is blue" defines
color.)

--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random question here
EAC code #191       41d:15h:59m actually running Linux.
                    >>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/10/01 1:25 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 20:09:37 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

snip>


>>>
>>>1.  "Abnormal is not quantitatively defined.
>>>
>>
>>why do you think it is not?  If you know what normal is -- an increase
>>in entropy -
>
>No.  In some situations entropy decreases, in some situations entropy
>decreases.  "Normal" is defined as "Functioning or occurring in a
>natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies" which
>means that both increases and decreases in entropy are normal,
>depending on the situation.
>

you mean, you've become accustomed to certain things happening, so
that means they are normal.  There are certain systems in nature that
are "natural" because we are familiar with them, but when you stop and
think about it, it is abnormal for these systems to form spontaneously
while 2LoT is operating.

>You appear to be just slinging words without any idea of their
>meanings.
>
>>then "abnormal" is automatically defined -- a decrease
>>in entropy; is it not?
>
>If your premise of the definition of normal is true, then it is.  But
>your premise is false.  So the conclusion is also false.
>

my premise is that 2LoT operates exactly the way scientists say it
does.  Therefore, certain things cannot happen spontaneously while
2LoT holds sway.  And if their formation is nonspontaneous, then these
nonspontaneous developments had to occur outside of the realm of 2LoT.

>>Why do you need it to be further defined
>>"quantitatively"?
>
>Because you used it as an adverb, modifying the verb "decrease".  It
>cannot mean "decrease" in that context - that's another reason why you
>claim that "abnormal" means "decrease" is false.  Not only did you use
>it as a modifier, you capitalized the entire word, which increases the
>emphasis.
>
>So, given that "ABNORMAL decrease" does not mean "DECREASE decrease",
>what does it mean?
>

"abnormal" means the existence of a system that could not be formed in
the presence of entropy because of the system's ability to decrease
entropy; so, therefore, it must have formed before 2LoT was in
operation.

snip>


>>
>>I agree that knowing starting conditions and ending conditions is
>>necessary in order to determine if entropy has increased or decreased.
>>But 2LoT seems to state that increase in entropy is the norm
>
>No, it does not.  You DO NOT HAVE THE MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE
>SECOND LAW.  Increase in entropy is the norm FOR ISOLATED SYSTEMS THAT
>DO NOT INTERACT WITH THEIR SURROUNDINGS.

I NEVER MENTIONED ISOLATED SYSTEMS.   (oops.)

The Earth is an open system, and yet entropy increases.

> Since living things interact
>with their surroundings, an increase in entropy is *****NOT****
>(necessarily) the norm for living things.  Since the entire Earth
>interacts with its surroundings (by receiving sunlight, and increase
>in entropy is ****NOT*** (necessarily) the norm for the Earth.
>

entropy increase is NOT necessarily the norm BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE
there are systems in place that buck the overall system.

>If you wish to argue that the entropy of the Earth or living things
>decreases in any particular situation, you are going to have to DEFINE
>THE SITUATION, then SET UP THE EQUATIONS, the SOLVE THE EQUATIONS.
>There's no shortcut.
>

why do I need to SET UP EQUATIONS when there ALREADY are equations in
place that show that the entropy of Earth decreases under certain
circumstances?  

>>so that,
>>with this understanding
>
>Since your understanding is incorrect, anything you derive from that
>understanding is WRONG.
>

are you saying that decrease in entropy is a WRONG understanding?

>>in mind, once the calculations are made based
>>on beginning and ending states, it can be determined whether there was
>>an increase in entropy in the system (which is normal under 2LoT)
>
>No, it depends on the situation.  Entropy can increase or decrease.
>Either is normal.
>

it is normal for entropy to decrease when a system is in place that
nonspontaneously decreases entropy, yes.  It is the system that is put
in place that interests me -- or the system that is so structured that
it overcomes an increase in entropy when it meets it.

>>or
>>whether there was a decrease in entropy (which is abnormal under
>>2LoT).
>
>No.    It depends on the situation.  Entropy can increase or decrease.
>Either is normal....

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/10/01 1:36 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 20:29:09 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 9 Jun 2001 20:00:58 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)


>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>snip>
>>>
>>>This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
>>>source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
>>>direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
>>>absence of an energy source.
>>
>>and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
>>create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?
>
>Sunlight does not create any systems. Sunlight drives the energy of
>the system into which it shines to a higher level.  The mechanism by
>which this happens varies depending on exactly what system you are
>talking about.
>
>>
>>>  Some of that stored energy is available for
>>>work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is 'wasted',
>>>so e...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/10/01 1:40 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 21:40:20 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:

>>>
>> snip>
>> >
>> >This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
>> >source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
>> >direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
>> >absence of an energy source.
>>
>> and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
>> create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?
>
>I have no idea what you are even asking here.
>

why?  It is a simple question.  Does sunlight create the type of
system that uses endergonic reactions?  Or does the system have to be
in place first before the sun's energy can drive the system?

>> >  Some of that stored energy is available for
>> >work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is
>'wasted',
>> >so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.  I am
>> saying that in the presence of 2LoT, certain nonspontaneous systems
>> will not form spontaneously, and since 2LoT will not be violated,
>> these nonspontaneous systems had to form before 2LoT.
>
>And you have been told repeatedly be everyone and his uncle that you don't
>know what you are talking about.  But don't let that stop you--it never
>does.  What the hell is a non-spontaneous system?  You still don't
>understand the difference between a system and a reaction do you?
>I don't know why we keep trying to explain this to you.
>Take a system composed of Hydrogen (H), Oxygen (O), and water(H2O).  This is
>a simple system in which 2 reactions are possible:  2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O +
>heat is the exergonic or exothermic (spontaneous if you m...

Evidence The Ghost In The Machine 6/10/01 2:30 PM
In talk.origins, Andrew Glasgow
<amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID>
 wrote
on 6 Jun 2001 00:08:23 -0400
<amg39.REMOVETHIS-08DF19.00081606062001@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>:
>In article <3b19a079....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>> On 2 Jun 2001 20:21:43 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3b19807a....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>> >>
>> >>On 2 Jun 2001 17:30:13 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 1 Jun 2001 23:03:52 -0400, David Ewan Kahana
>> >>><kah...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>>> I've no
>> >>>>proof or argument to support the truth or falsehood of that
>> >>>>proposition, but the second law has turned up in some unexpected
>> >>>>ways in the study of black holes.
>> >>>
>> >>>they've found the existence of 2LoT in black holes?  Or they have
>> >>>incorporated 2LoT into their theory of black holes?
>> >>
>> >>yes, they have. stephen hawking, among others, ha...
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/10/01 2:40 PM
On 10 Jun 2001 16:30:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 9 Jun 2001 20:29:09 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>However, you have not provided any evidence that the biological
>>systems about which you are arguing violate the 2LoT.  
>
>why should I present evidence that biological systems violate 2LoT?
>They DO NOT.  I am presenting evidence that biological systems could
>not develop, form, evolve, while under the rule of 2LoT.  There's a
>difference there.

OK, I phrased my statement incorrectly.

You have not provided any evidence that biological systems could not
develop, form, evolve while under the rule of the 2Lot.  All you have
done is say that they couldn't

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/10/01 2:40 PM
On 10 Jun 2001 16:23:21 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 9 Jun 2001 20:09:37 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>>>>
>>>>1.  "Abnormal is not quantitatively defined.
>>>>
>>>
>>>why do you think it is not?  If you know what normal is -- an increase
>>>in entropy -
>>
>>No.  In some situations entropy decreases, in some situations entropy
>>decreases.  "Normal" is defined as "Functioning or occurring in a
>>natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies" which
>>means that both increases and decreases in entropy are normal,
>>depending on the situation.
>>
>
>you mean, you've become accustomed to certain things happening, so
>that means they are normal.  There are certain systems in nature that
>are "natural" because we are familiar with them, but when you stop and
>think about it, it is abnormal for these systems to form spontaneously
>while 2LoT is operating.

It is normal for these systems to operate spontaneously while the 2LoT
is operating.  You have often claimed that these systems could not
form spontaneously while the 2LoT is operating, but you have not
supplied any evidence or calculations to support that claim.  On the
other hand, I and other people who understand the math of
thermodynamics say there does not appear to be any foundation for your
claim.  So, if you want to _convince_ anybody, you're going to have to
provide evidence.  You haven't done so yet.

Whether or not your claim is true, your definition of  an increase in
entropy as "normal" is incorrect.

>
>>You appear to be just slinging words without any idea of their
>>meanings.
>>
>>>then "abnormal" is automatically defined -- a decrease
>>>in entropy; is it not?
>>
>>If your premise of the definition of normal is true, then it is.  But
>>your premise is false.  So the conclusion is also false.
>>
>
>my premise is that 2LoT operates exactly the way scientists say it
>does.  Therefore, certain things cannot happen spontaneously while
>2LoT holds sway.  And if their formation is nonspontaneous, then these
>nonspontaneous developments had to occur outside of the realm of 2LoT.

THis is true ... BUT ... you have a very incorrect and muddled idea of
what is allowed and not allowed by the 2LoT.  Your assessment of what
can and cannot happen is worthless, because you are ignorant.  That's
not an insult, it's just a fact.

>
>>>Why do you need it to be further defined
>>>"quantitatively"?
>>
>>Because you used it as an adverb, modifying the verb "decrease".  It
>>cannot mean "decrease" in that context - that's another reason why you
>>claim that "abnormal" means "decrease" is false.  Not only did you use
>>it as a modifier, you capitalized the entire word, which increases the
>>emphasis.
>>
>>So, given that "ABNORMAL decrease" does not mean "DECREASE decrease",
>>what does it mean?
>>
>
>"abnormal" means the existence of a system that could not be formed in
>the presence of entropy because of the system's ability to decrease
>entropy; so, therefore, it must have formed before 2LoT was in
>operation.

OK, then that is a meaningless definition.  There is not such thing in
existence that is what you defined as abnormal.  If you wish to argue
otherwise, *prove* *it*.

>
>snip>
>>>
>>>I agree that knowing starting conditions and ending conditions is
>>>necessary in order to determine if entropy has increased or decreased.
>>>But 2LoT seems to state that increase in entropy is the norm
>>
>>No, it does not.  You DO NOT HAVE THE MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE
>>SECOND LAW.  Increase in entropy is the norm FOR ISOLATED SYSTEMS THAT
>>DO NOT INTERACT WITH THEIR SURROUNDINGS.
>
>I NEVER MENTIONED ISOLATED SYSTEMS.   (oops.)
>
>The Earth is an open system,

Yes.

>and yet entropy increases.

Does it?  Does the overall entropy of the entire Earth increase?  It's
been a long time since I did the calculations, but IIRC the entropy of
the entire Earth does  _not_ increase.  Again, if you wish to argue
otherwise, present your calculations.

>
>> Since living things interact
>>with their surroundings, an increase in entropy is *****NOT****
>>(necessarily) the norm for living things.  Since the entire Earth
>>interacts with its surroundings (by receiving sunlight, and increase
>>in entropy is ****NOT*** (necessarily) the norm for the Earth.
>>
>
>entropy increase is NOT necessarily the norm BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE
>there are systems in place that buck the overall system.

Such as the Sun.

>
>>If you wish to argue that the entropy of the Earth or living things
>>decreases in any particular situation, you are going to have to DEFINE
>>THE SITUATION, then SET UP THE EQUATIONS, the SOLVE THE EQUATIONS.
>>There's no shortcut.
>>
>
>why do I need to SET UP EQUATIONS when there ALREADY are equations in
>place that show that the entropy of Earth decreases under certain
>circumstances?  

Ok, just point me to where these equations are demonstrated.

>
>>>so that,
>>>with this understanding
>>
>>Since your understanding is incorrect, anything you derive from that
>>understanding is WRONG.
>>
>
>are you saying that decrease in entropy is a WRONG understanding?

No, I am saying that your ideas of when entropy increases or decreases
are wrong, and your ideas of what the 2LoT allows and does not allow
are wrong.  This is because you don't understand the 2LoT.  The way to
understand it is to *use* it. And that means math.

>
>>>in mind, once the calculations are made based
>>>on beginning and ending states, it can be determined whether there was
>>>an increase in entropy in the system (which is normal under 2LoT)
>>
>>No, it depends on the situation.  Entropy can increase or decrease.
>>Either is normal.
>>
>
>it is normal for entropy to decrease when a system is in place that
>nonspontaneously decreases entropy, yes.  It is the system that is put
>in place that interests me -- or the system that is so structured that
>it overcomes an increase in entropy when it meets it.

You are confused over the meaning of the word "system".  In
thermodynamics, "system" means the physical items that are being
studied....

Evidence lenny 6/10/01 2:55 PM
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b23d8e4.22066737@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 9 Jun 2001 21:40:20 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
> >> >This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an
energy
> >> >source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
> >> >direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
> >> >absence of an energy source.
> >>
> >> and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
> >> create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?
> >
> >I have no idea what you are even asking here.
> >
>
> why?  It is a simple question.  Does sunlight create the type of
> system that uses endergonic reactions?  Or does the system have to be
> in place first before the sun's energy can drive the system?

You are asking me if sunlight produces chemicals?  Are you asking me if
sunlight produced the oxygen and hydrogen in the example I gave you?

> >> >  Some of that stored energy is available for
> >> >work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is
> >'wasted',
> >> >so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.  I am
> >> saying that in the presence of 2LoT, certain nonspontaneous systems
> >> will not form spontaneously, and since 2LoT will not be violated,
> >> these nonspontaneous systems had to form before 2LoT.
> >
> >And you have been told repeatedly be everyone and his uncle that you
don't
> >know what you are talking about.  But don't let that stop you--it never
> >does.  What the hell is a non-spontaneous system?  You still don't
> >understand the difference between a system and a reaction do you?
> >I don't know why we keep trying to explain this to you.
> >Take a system composed of Hydrogen (H), Oxygen (O), and water(H2O).  This
is
> >a simple system in which 2 reactions are possible:  2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O +
> >heat is the exergonic or exothermic (spontaneous if you must) reaction;
> >2 H2O + energy  -->  2 H2 + O2 is the endergonic or endothermic reaction.
> >Endergonic reactions ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/10/01 4:35 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 18:58:43 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>>
>
>evaporation - spontaneous

depends on temperature.


>crystal formation - spontaneous

depends on temp and concentration. so your rule that entropy is
'spontaneous' is meaningless...

>DNA formation - nonspontaneous

again..meaningless...


>gravity - spontaneous

gravity is not a reaction.

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/10/01 4:35 PM
On 10 Jun 2001 16:30:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>why should I present evidence that biological systems violate 2LoT?
>They DO NOT.  I am presenting evidence that biological systems could
>not develop, form, evolve, while under the rule of 2LoT.  There's a
>difference there.

No, you are presenting a theory that biological systems could not develop,
form or evolve under the 2LoT.  Of course, we observe them doing all those
things, so I am not sure that your theory is worth a great deal.

        Mark

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/10/01 4:35 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 19:27:14 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 17:52:48 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:


>
>>On 2 Jun 2001 15:47:48 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>oppostie of normal.  It is normal for entropy to increase.  It is
>>>abnormal for entropy to decrease unless a system has been put in place
>>>for the purpose of decreasing entropy.  Intervention is the only way
>>>entropy is decreased in our world as we know it.  
>>
>>'Intervention'?
>>
>
>doesn't it take intelligent intervention to manufacture a refrigerator
>that serves to decrease entropy?

no, it doesnt. a hot springs will do. as water is sprayed, under
pressure, from a natural geyser, it will cool, and minerals in the
water will condense out. thats a natural refrigerator, and
crystallization is a decrease in entropy.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/10/01 4:35 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 19:24:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2001 17:39:16 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:


>
>>George Acton wrote:
>>>
>>> You seem to be operating on a syllogism that goes:
>>>
>>>     If we cannot demonstrate Divine violation of standard physical
>>>       laws, then God does not exist.
>>>
>>>     The origin of life is such a violation..
>>>
>>>     Therefore, God exists.
>>>
>>
>>I think zoe_althrop is operating with this syllogism (sillygism):
>>
>>     If we can demonstrate that a violation of standard physical
>>       laws has occurred, then God exists.

>>
>>     The origin of life is such a violation..
>>
>>     Therefore, God must exist.
>>
>
>not really.  Demonstrating that the replication system formed before
>2LoT kicked in can go in either direction.  For the evolutionist, it
>can say that evolution of nonspontaneous systems more reasonably
>occurred before the 2LoT.  For the believer in God, it can say that
>t...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/10/01 4:35 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 19:18:10 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:
>actually, the short-term goal of this thread was simply to present
>evidence that the 2LoT must have moved into operation AFTER the
>formation of the genetic coding system.  

which requires that the universe doesnt exist. we already know that
didnt happen from observation of galaxies older than the earth. the
laws of physics have been in existence since the big bang happened...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/10/01 4:40 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 20:00:58 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
>>source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
>>direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
>>absence of an energy source.
>
>and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
>create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?
>
>>  Some of that stored energy is available for
>>work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is 'wasted',
>>so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
>>
>
>I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.

for the 2nd not to function is a violation of the 2nd. reactions where
the 2nd 'doesnt function' take infinitely long to happen since they're
always close to equilibrium.

Evidence Tom 6/10/01 5:22 PM
"On 10 Jun 2001 19:33:53 -0400, in article
<3b2403af....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net stated...">crystallization is a ...
Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/10/01 7:00 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>On 9 Jun 2001 22:02:20 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:

>snip>

>>I'm not sure what your distinction in "postive free energy", "negative
>>free energry" and "neutral free energy" is supposed to be. An
>>explanation is welcome.

>neutral free energy is that energy that is available as a supply, such
>as the sunlight, or chemical energy, or nuclear energy, or
>gravitational energy, or electromagnetic energy, or electrical energy,
>or kinetic energy, or mass energy.

>negative free energy is that energy that is lost to work and causes
>entropy to increase.

>positive free energy is that energy that is absorbed by a system to do
>work and causes entropy to decrease in the system.

Hmm. I put my calculations on hold for a while, because as long as you
think these are different things, you're not ready for calculations.

The point is, they are all the same thing. I'm a bit at a loss to
explain this, I'm not a physics teacher. H...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/10/01 7:55 PM
In article <3b23c325...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

> On 9 Jun 2001 21:49:06 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
> <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >No, learn more until you do understand the laws.  Or stop attacking them
> >and accept that maybe, just maybe, the people who have spent their lives
> >studying these laws just might understand them a bit better than
> >whatever creationist source first told you that the 2LoT contradicts
> >evolution.
> >
>
> there is no creationist source that told me that 2LoT contradicts
> evolution.

Oh really?  Then why are you saying that it does?

> Besides, this thread has nothing to do with 2LoT
> contradicting evolution.  It has to do with whether the replication
> system that contains the genetic code arose before or after 2LoT was
> in operation.

The 2LoT has been in existence since the Big Bang, as it is a simple
statistical law about how large amounts of particles are likely to
behave.

> "After" has problems.  "Before" will allow the
> evolutionist to evolve his replication system in the absence of 2LoT,
> and will also allow the creationist to appreciate a system that was
> created before 2LoT.  

However, science requires that we use the laws of the universe as they
are, not guess randomly that maybe things were different at one time
than they were today.  Were...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/11/01 2:15 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b22b0c2.40551470@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 2 Jun 2001 16:28:48 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >Your problem is not a matter of precision of language, it is sheer
ignorance
> >about what you are talking about.
> >
> >Listen for the n+1th time:
> >
> >1. A SYSTEM IS NOT A REACTION: IT IS A SYSTEM.
>
> the system consists of reactions.  Is that better?

NO.  Look at the example of the blendor below. The blender doesnt consist of
blending. In the same way the system does not consist of reactions. The
system takes part in reactions, but the system does not consist of
reactions. A blender takes part in blending, but the blender doesnt consist
of blending.

> >2. A system may participate in reactions,
>
> a system consists of reactions; it doesn't participate in them, imo.

Are you pulling my leg?


> >but the system is NOT A REACTION,
>
> heard you the first time.  The system consists of reactions.

NO, THE SYSTEM DOES NOT CONSIST OF REACTIONS, THE SYSTEM TAKES PART IN
REACTIONS.


> >in the same way that a blendor is not the same as the process of
blending.
> >For blending bananas you have to plug the blender in and turn it on, but
you
> >can have the blender sitting on the bench doing nothing, and that doesnt
> >require plugging it in.
>
> and the moment you plug it in and press the blend button, the system
> reacts?  Hmmmm, maybe a system is a reaction after all?

NO, THE SYSTEM DOESNT REACT. THE SYSTEM DOES SOMETHING. IT BLENDS BANANAS.

>
> >3.The genetic code DOES NOT OPERATE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLICATION.
>
> replication would not occur without the assistance of the genetic
> code, would it?

OH,  YES IT WOULD.  REPLICATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENETIC CODE...

Evidence Louann Miller 6/11/01 5:10 AM
On 10 Jun 2001 20:14:28 -0400, Tom <Tom_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>     Perhaps someone can correct me on this, but it seems to me
>that there is *nothing* that an intelligent agent can do, that
>cannot also happen "naturally".  The laws of thermodynamics, to
>take one example, were discovered precisely *because* the clever
>engineers of the 19th century were not able to bypass certain
>limitations.
>
>     To look to an intelligent agent as an explanation for a
>decrease in entropy is just looking in the wrong place.  It would
>be something like trying to explain why an airplane can fly,
>saying that an intelligent designer has designed it, so that it
>can overcome the law of gravity.

Somebody please give that man a cigar? Ideally one made out of
chocolate.

Louann

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/11/01 6:05 PM

No, the system doesnt react. The system does something. Like the blendor
blends bananas.

>
> >3.The genetic code DOES NOT OPERATE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLICATION.
>
> replication would not occur without the assistance of the genetic
> code, would it?

OH,  YES IT WOULD.  REPLICATION ...

Evidence Don Cates 6/12/01 3:35 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 19:54:15 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 09:19:26 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:
>
>snip>


>>>>You equate "free energy" with the energy that is involved in pushing a
>>>>rock uphill.
>>
>>>no, I equated POSITIVE free energy as the energy involved in pushing a
>>>rock uphill.
>>
>>Ok, that's what you said. Am I correct in understanding that positive
>>free energy (as in potential energy) to energy that is able to perform
>>work? If that is indeed the case, please explain where the energy
>>generated by hydro plants comes from. You will, I hope, agree that the
>>electrical power of a hydro plant is a form of positive free energy.
>>
>
>I would think that the electrical power of a hydro plant would fall
>into the category of free energy, but the energy expended in the
>creation of the hydro plant itself would fall into the category of
>postive free energy.
>
>>[snip]
>>>>In your response you introduce "spontaneous reactions".
>>>>Whether evaporation of water is a spontaneous reaction of an open body
>>>>of water to heating or not (however you like to define spontaneous)
>>>>does not change the fact that it is still an example of mass being
>>>>pushed "uphill" as a consequence of the sun's radiation, and
>>>>consequently of your precious "free energy".

>>
>>>"uphill" is not the point
>>
>>It is ...

Evidence Don Cates 6/12/01 3:45 PM
On 9 Jun 2001 20:00:58 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:


>
>snip>
>>
>>This has been explained to you already, I'm sure.  Sunlight is an energy
>>source that can drive a system to a higher energy level--the opposite
>>direction than that in which the system would spontaneously go in the
>>absence of an energy source.
>
>and it is the system itself that I am interested in.  Does sunlight
>create the system that is used to drive energy to a higher level?
>
>>  Some of that stored energy is available for
>>work when the system returns to its lower energy state but some is 'wasted',
>>so entropy increases.  There is no violation of the 2LoT.
>>
>
>I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.  I am
>saying that in the presence of 2LoT, certain nonspontaneous systems
>will not form spontaneously, and since 2LoT will not be violated,
>these nonspontaneous systems had to form before 2LoT.

Wh...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 6:20 AM
On 10 Jun 2001 17:36:01 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2001 16:23:21 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
snip>


>>
>>you mean, you've become accustomed to certain things happening, so
>>that means they are normal.  There are certain systems in nature that
>>are "natural" because we are familiar with them, but when you stop and
>>think about it, it is abnormal for these systems to form spontaneously
>>while 2LoT is operating.
>
>It is normal for these systems to operate spontaneously while the 2LoT
>is operating.

you're rephrasing my statement -- incorrectly.  I said, "it is
abnormal for these systems to FORM spontaneously while 2LoT is
operating."

> You have often claimed that these systems could not


>form spontaneously while the 2LoT is operating, but you have not
>supplied any evidence or calculations to support that claim.  On the
>other hand, I and other people who understand the math of
>thermodynamics say there does not appear to be any foundation for your
>claim.  So, if you want to _convince_ anybody, you're going to have to
>provide evidence.  You haven't done so yet.
>

the evidence is in the very math that you understand and use for how
2LoT operates.  By the math that says that entropy always increases
unless there is a system in place that decreases  it, it becomes
evident that those systems that decrease entropy could not,
themselves, have FORMED in the presence of 2LoT, since it takes
nonspontaneou (endergonic) processes to form systems that decrease
entropy.


snip>


>>
>>"abnormal" means the existence of a system that could not be formed in
>>the presence of entropy because of the system's ability to decrease
>>entropy; so, therefore, it must have formed before 2LoT was in
>>operation.
>
>OK, then that is a meaningless definition.  There is not such thing in
>existence that is what you defined as abnormal.  If you wish to argue
>otherwise, *prove* *it*.
>

your own definition of entropy proves it.  I don't have to.  

Entropy = k log(N).  K being Boltzmann's constant multiplied by the
log of the number of possible states that a system can be in.  

This, according to you scientists, means that the more possible states
that a system can be in, the higher the entropy (or tendency for
disorder).  The supposed "primordial Earth" would have been100 % an
open system, with a continuous input of energy from the sun.
According to YOUR definition of entropy, the higher the temperature
and the greater the volume, the higher the entropy.  With an open
system like the Earth, containing, as yet, no closed systems, entropy
would be so great that only exergonic processes could occur.  For
entropy to decrease, deliberate, intelligent, purposeful planning
would be the only solution for overcoming entropy -- and none of these
factors are a part of the primordial scene.

>snip>


>>
>>The Earth is an open system,
>
>Yes.
>
>>and yet entropy increases.
>
>Does it?  Does the overall entropy of the entire Earth increase?

why do you insist on rephrasing my statements to say something that I
did not?  I simply said "entropy increases."  You rephrase that as
"overall entropy of the entire Earth."  And then proceed to argue from
that false platform onwards.

> It's
>been a long time since I did the calculations, but IIRC the entropy of
>the entire Earth does  _not_ increase.  Again, if you wish to argue
>otherwise, present your calculations.
>

The entropy of the entire Earth does not increase because SYSTEMS are
in place that reduce entropy.  These systems are what interest me.
Can they form spontaneously when 2LoT is operating?

>>
snip>


>>>
>>
>>entropy increase is NOT necessarily the norm BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE
>>there are systems in place that buck the overall system.
>
>Such as the Sun.
>

the sun is not  a system of endergonic processes.  It is simply a
source of free energy that gets used in systems that buck the effects
of 2LoT.

>>
>>>If you wish to argue that the entropy of the Earth or living things
>>>decreases in any particular situation, you are going to have to DEFINE
>>>THE SITUATION, then SET UP THE EQUATIONS, the SOLVE THE EQUATIONS.
>>>There's no shortcut.
>>>
>>
>>why do I need to SET UP EQUATIONS when there ALREADY are equations in
>>place that show that the entropy of Earth decreases under certain
>>circumstances?  
>
>Ok, just point me to w...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 6:40 AM
On 10 Jun 2001 22:52:51 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
<amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

>In article <3b23c325...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>snip>

>> there is no creationist source that told me that 2LoT contradicts
>> evolution.
>
>Oh really?  Then why are you saying that it does?
>

you mean that I can say only things that come from creationist
sources? Are you saying that I cannot think for myself?

>> Besides, this thread has nothing to do with 2LoT
>> contradicting evolution.  It has to do with whether the replication
>> system that contains the genetic code arose before or after 2LoT was
>> in operation.
>
>The 2LoT has been in existence since the Big Bang, as it is a simple
>statistical law about how large amounts of particles are likely to
>behave.
>

how do you know this?  Were you present at the Big Bang, those first
few seconds after (or before) the Big Bang, to be able to state so
confidently that 2LoT existed back then?  And if it did, then how did
the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
pressure, the higher the entropy?  After the BB, with 2LoT in
operation, you would find the particles and "dust bunnies" and
planetismals all becoming more and more disordered, not the reverse.  

And here's a question just for you, Andrew, off-thread-topic, but I'm
sure you have an answer:

was ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 6:50 AM
On 11 Jun 2001 05:13:10 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>


>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip>

>> the system consists of reactions.  Is that better?
>
>NO.  Look at the example of the blendor below. The blender doesnt consist of
>blending.

the blender consists of parts that do blending (or do reactions).

>In the same way the system does not consist of reactions. The
>system takes part in reactions, but the system does not consist of
>reactions. A blender takes part in blending, but the blender doesnt consist
>of blending.
>

shucks, you're confusing yourself, I think.  The blender is the
system.  The blades and power source are the parts that enable
reactions.  The blender does not take part in the reactions.  It
provides an environment in which blending can take place.  If the
blender itself took part in the blending action, you would have puree
all over the place.

snip>

>> replication would not occur without the assistance of the genetic
>> code, would it?
>
>OH,  YES IT WOULD.  REPLICATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENETIC CODE.
>THE GENETIC CODE ONLY  OPERATES IN THE PROCESS OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS.
>

wow!  It looks like caps are coming into vogue.  I must keep up.

I SHOULD HAVE MADE MYSELF CLEARER:  REPLICATION HERE REFERS TO
BIOLOGICAL REPLICATION.

snip>
>> >4. replication refers to the synthesis of new DNA using old DNA as
>template.
>>
>> or do you mean that replication really refers t...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 7:05 AM
On 10 Jun 2001 21:59:06 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

>explain this, I'm not a physics teacher. However, google is your
>friend, a little search brought me this page:
>
>http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/energy_physics_primer.htm
>

thank you, Nantko.  I read your link and found ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 7:10 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 09:17:54 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

which is nonsense since the sun itself provides energy to drive
reactions in non-spontaneous directions. why this creationist seems to
think we need to suspend the laws of thermo, when we already have an
energy source is something she doesnt say.


>This, according to you scientists, means that the more possible states
>that a system can be in, the higher the entropy (or tendency for
>disorder).  The supposed "primordial Earth" would have been100 % an
>open system, with a continuous input of energy from the sun.
>According to YOUR definition of entropy, the higher the temperature
>and the greater the volume, the higher the entropy.  With an open
>system like the Earth, containing, as yet, no closed systems, entropy
>would be so great that only exergonic processes could occur.  For
>entropy to decrease, deliberate, intelligent, purposeful planning
>would be the only solution for overcoming entropy -- and none of these
>factors are a part of the primordial scene.

1. the earth is still an open system

2. how do you know 'entropy would be so great that only exergonic
processes could occur'? with abundant solar energy available, and
almost NO competition present from other organisms, thermo indicates
that even very inefficient reactions which lead to life would happen.

3. my dog is intelligent. yet he's never done deliberate planning to
decrease entropy. your statement that intelligence can do this is
wrong, or, at best, meaningless, absent a mechanism.

>
>>snip>
>>>
>>>The Earth is an open system,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>and yet entropy increases.
>>
>>Does it?  Does the overall entropy of the entire Earth increase?
>
>why do you insist on rephrasing my statements to say something that I
>did not?  I simply said "entropy increases."  You rephrase that as
>"overall entropy of the entire Earth."  And then proceed to argue from
>that false platform onwards.

thats the way i read your argument, just as he did. you are very
vague. thats necessary in creationism so you can back away from your
argument saying 'thats not what i meant'. what it indicates is you
dont have a firm grasp on your argument.

>
>> It's
>>been a long time since I did the calculations, but IIRC the entropy of
>>the entire Earth does  _not_ increase.  Again, if you wish to argue
>>otherwise, present your calculations.
>>
>
>The entropy of the entire Earth does not increase because SYSTEMS are
>in place that reduce entropy.  These systems are what interest me.
>Can they form spontaneously when 2LoT is operating?

they do so today. and we know they did then. we know the slot was
operating when the earth was formed. we can see it in the stars since
we can measure nuclear reactions in galaxies more than 5B yrs old. so
your argument fails BOTH on theory AND in measurement. that, of
course, wont stop you. the LAST thing creationists function on is
evidence.

>
>>>
>snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>>entropy increase is NOT necessarily the norm BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE
>>>there are systems in place that buck the overall system.
>>
>>Such as the Sun.
>>
>
>the sun is not  a system of endergonic processes.  It is simply a
>source of free energy that gets used in systems that buck the effects
>of 2LoT.

DUH!! and there are chemical reactions which are ENDERGONIC and which
can use solar energy to drive them. no intelligence is needed.

>
>>>
>>>>If you wish to argue that the entropy of the Earth or living things
>>>>decreases in any particular situation, you are going to have to DEFINE
>>>>THE SITUATION, then SET UP THE EQUATIONS, the SOLVE THE EQUATIONS.
>>>>There's no shortcut.
>>>>
>>>
>>>why do I need to SET UP EQUATIONS when there ALREADY are equations in
>>>place that show that the entropy of Earth decreases under certain
>>>circumstances?  
>>
>>Ok, just point me to where these equations are demonstrated.
>>
>
>deltaS=q/T in the context of S = k log(N).  Depending on what the
>values are in deltaS=q/T, it can be ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 7:15 AM
On 12 Jun 2001 18:32:59 -0400, ca...@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates)
wrote:
snip>
>
>This 'positive', 'negative', 'neutral' energy distinctions make no
>sense, but let's ignore that for 'rock pushing'.
>Extreme weather, huricaines and tornados, regularly push rocks uphill.
>As does alternating freeze/thaw cycles, that's why farmers regularly
>have to 'rock pick' their fields.
>All this happens because of natural, spontaneous interactions of the
>sun's energy with the Earth.


hurricanes pushing rocks up a hill is not my idea of a system.  Sure
these actions are natural and spontaneous, but they do not a system
make.

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 7:20 AM
On 10 Jun 2001 17:51:06 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:

>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip>

>> >
>>
>> why?  It is a simple question.  Does sunlight create the type of
>> system that uses endergonic reactions?  Or does the system have to be
>> in place first before the sun's energy can drive the system?
>
>You are asking me if sunlight produces chemicals?  Are you asking me if
>sunlight produced the oxygen and hydrogen in the example I gave you?
>

I am asking if sunlight is known to form systems if oxygen and
hydrogen and nitrogen and carbon are present and unattached.  Can you
put these molecules in a jar and see a system form through the input
of sunlight?
snip>

--
zoe

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 7:20 AM
On 10 Jun 2001 19:33:30 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2001 16:30:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>why should I present evidence that biological systems violate 2LoT?
>>They DO NOT.  I am presenting evidence that biological systems could
>>not develop, form, evolve, while under the rule of 2LoT.  There's a
>>difference there.
>
>No, you are presenting a theory that biological systems could not develop,
>form or evolve under the 2LoT.  Of course, we observe them doing all those
>things, so I am not sure that your theory is worth a great deal.
>

when last have you seen chemicals come together and form even a
primitive genetic coding system for an entirely new type of species?
What you are observing are systems that are already in place and
operating in the presence of 2LoT.  We do not observe nonspontaneous
formations of new trial-and-error biological systems that are
triggered by sunlight.  If sunlight truly...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/16/01 7:25 AM
On 12 Jun 2001 18:43:23 -0400, ca...@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates)
wrote:

>On 9 Jun 2001 20:00:58 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)


>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jun 2001 12:08:54 -0400, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
snip>
>>I don't think I've said that there is any violation of 2LoT.  I am
>>saying that in the presence of 2LoT, certain nonspontaneous systems
>>will not form spontaneously, and since 2LoT will not be violated,
>>these nonspontaneous systems had to form before 2LoT.
>
>Why just "certain nonspontaneous systems" instead of 'all nonspontaneous
>systems'?

okay, I'll go with "all nonspontaneous systems."

snip>
--
zoe

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 7:45 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2001 22:52:51 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
><amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b23c325...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
>> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>>snip>
>>> there is no creationist source that told me that 2LoT contradicts
>>> evolution.
>>
>>Oh really?  Then why are you saying that it does?
>>
>
>you mean that I can say only things that come from creationist
>sources? Are you saying that I cannot think for myself?
>
>>> Besides, this thread has nothing to do with 2LoT
>>> contradicting evolution.  It has to do with whether the replication
>>> system that contains the genetic code arose before or after 2LoT was
>>> in operation.
>>
>>The 2LoT has been in existence since the Big Bang, as it is a simple
>>statistical law about how large amounts of particles are likely to
>>behave.
>>
>
>how do you know this?  Were you present at the Big Bang, those first
>few seconds after (or before) the Big Bang, to be able to state so
>confidently that 2LoT existed back then?

yes. creationists ignore the fact the laws of physics as we know them
DID exist at that time, because we can calculate the effects of the BB
on the 3 deg background radiation, and the distribution of elements
like H, He, Be, and Li. creationists pretend the laws of nature are
based on random chance, so we cant say what happened then. on that
basis, they hope to prove god is a god of order.

nice little contradiction.

 And if it did, then how did
>the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
>the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
>pressure, the higher the entropy?  

look at jupiter today. it has lots of unreacted H in its atmosphere.
entropy is a STATE function which means you calculate BEFORE and AFTER
amounts, not ABSOLUTE amounts of entropy.

After the BB, with 2LoT in
>operation, you would find the particles and "dust bunnies" and
>planetismals all becoming more and more disordered, not the reverse.  

and sometimes that happened. when asteroids collide, the result is a
bunch of little asteroids.

HOWEVER, again, your ignorance of the laws of phys...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 7:50 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 10:02:46 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2001 21:59:06 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:
>
>>Don't be frightened by the formulae, the qualitative discussion is the
>>essential part. It also features a discussion of entropy, which is,
>>though slightly technical correct for the discussions at hand.
>>
>
>I found the discussion of entropy to be helpful -- however, I notice
>that there is the attempt to make a loophole for evolution by stating
>that even though argon escapes out of a jar and increases entropy
>(this while you're floating out in space), IF, before opening the jar,
>you arranged the microscopic states of the argon molecules in just the
>right way,  you could open the jar for a moment and NOT have the argon
>escape.  I imagine it is on this rare arrangement that evolutionists
>place their bets that entropy can be decreased.  

what crap. a chemical reaction which takes place in our bodies does
not violate t...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 7:50 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 10:10:33 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

whatever your definition of a 'system' is. it looks like a system to
me. it has boundaries. it results in a transfer of energy. thats a
system.

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 7:50 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 10:16:09 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2001 19:33:30 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>>On 10 Jun 2001 16:30:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>why should I present evidence that biological systems violate 2LoT?
>>>They DO NOT.  I am presenting evidence that biological systems could
>>>not develop, form, evolve, while under the rule of 2LoT.  There's a
>>>difference there.
>>
>>No, you are presenting a theory that biological systems could not develop,
>>form or evolve under the 2LoT.  Of course, we observe them doing all those
>>things, so I am not sure that your theory is worth a great deal.
>>
>
>when last have you seen chemicals come together and form even a
>primitive genetic coding system for an entirely new type of species?
>What you are observing are systems that are already in place and
>operating in the presence of 2LoT.  We do not observe nonspontaneous
>format...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/16/01 8:45 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 09:17:54 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2001 17:36:01 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10 Jun 2001 16:23:21 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>snip>
>>>
>>>you mean, you've become accustomed to certain things happening, so
>>>that means they are normal.  There are certain systems in nature that
>>>are "natural" because we are familiar with them, but when you stop and
>>>think about it, it is abnormal for these systems to form spontaneously
>>>while 2LoT is operating.
>>
>>It is normal for these systems to operate spontaneously while the 2LoT
>>is operating.
>
>you're rephrasing my statement -- incorrectly.  I said, "it is
>abnormal for these systems to FORM spontaneously while 2LoT is
>operating."

Sorry, I did rephrase incorrectly.

It is normal for these systems to form while the 2Lot is operating.
Many of these systems have been formed in the lab, from simple
precursors, while the 2Lot of thermodynamics is operating.  Nobody,
ESPECIALLY including you,  has produced any evidence that these
systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.

You have asserted, over and over again, over a period of weeks, that
these systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.  You
have presented absolutely no evidence.  It is clear that you are
incapable of presenting the evidence, because your misunderstanding of
thermodynamics is profound.

Evidence would be:

1.  A clear and unambiguous statement of exactly what constitutes the
system.

2.  A clear and unambiguous definition of the boundary of the system.

3.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all processes that occur
inside the system.

4.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all energy or matter
that crosses the boundary of the system.

5.  If you intend to ignore any of the processes inside the system or
anything that crosses the boundary of the system, detailed reasoning
as to why your analysis is valid even if those things are ignored.

6.  CALCULATIONS of the entropy change inside the system.

These steps are not necessary because scientists want to suppress
ideas from lay people.  They are necessary because thermodynamics is a
complex subject and your analysis and conclusions WILL BE WRONG unless
you go through them.


>
>> You have often claimed that these systems could not
>>form spontaneously while the 2LoT is operating, but you have not
>>supplied any evidence or calculations to support that claim.  On the
>>other hand, I and other people who understand the math of
>>thermodynamics say there does not appear to be any foundation for your
>>claim.  So, if you want to _convince_ anybody, you're going to have to
>>provide evidence.  You haven't done so yet.
>>
>
>the evidence is in the very math that you understand and use for how
>2LoT operates.  By the math that says that entropy always increases
>unless there is a system in place that decreases


NO NO NO NO, a thousand times NO.  The math says that entropy change
consists of entropy generated within the system or entropy flowing
across the boundary of the system.  The 2LoT says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
about systems being required to decrease entropy, and in fact system
that decrease entropy are NOT required (unless you want to use a
ridiculously simple definition of "system" that is not appropriate
when discussing thermodynamics).  Entropy _flows_ just like heat.  If
you put a hot body in cold surroundings, heat flows.  There is no
_system_ that forces the heat to flow; the heat just flows.  Entropy
is the same way.  The energy we receive from the Sun is a flow of
entropy from us to the Sun, and there is no system required; entropy
just flows.


> it, it becomes
>evident that those systems that decrease entropy could not,
>themselves, have FORMED in the presence of 2LoT, since it takes
>nonspontaneou (endergonic) processes to form systems that decrease
>entropy.

No.  No. No.  It does NOT TAKE NONSPANTANEOUS PROCESS TO DECREAS
ENTROPY.  NO SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO DECREASE ENTROPY.  ENTROPY FLOWS.


>
>
>snip>
>>>
>>>"abnormal" means the existence of a system that could not be formed in
>>>the presence of entropy because of the system's ability to decrease
>>>entropy; so, therefore, it must have formed before 2LoT was in
>>>operation.
>>
>>OK, then that is a meaningless definition.  There is not such thing in
>>existence that is what you defined as abnormal.  If you wish to argue
>>otherwise, *prove* *it*.
>>
>
>your own definition of entropy proves it.  I don't have to.  

Please expound.  Define entropy rigorously, list the relevant
equations, do the calculations.

>
>Entropy = k log(N).  K being Boltzmann's constant multiplied by the
>log of the number of possible states that a system can be in.

Whoops, you blew it.  Entropy = k log (N)  for some simple systems
such as ideal gases.  Entropy does NOT equal k log(N) in the most
general case.  And that equation ONLY WORKS FOR ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

From <http://members.home.net/fsteiger/2nd-law.htm> :

"Returning to the relationship between entropy and probability,
keeping in mind its practical limitations in determining whether or
not a given reaction can proceed:

As we have seen before, dS can be either positive or negative.
When dS is negative equation (7) can be written:

   -dS = -K ln(X2/X1)
       = K ln(X1/X2)

Therefore a system can go from a more probable state (X2) to a less
probable state (X1), providing S for the system is negative.
In cases where the system interacts with its surroundings,
S can be negative providing the over-all entropy of the system and its
interacting surroundings is positive; the over-all change can be
positive if the entropy increase of  the surroundings is numerically
greater than the entropy decrease of the system.

In the case of the formation of the complex molecules characteristic
of living organisms, creationists raise the point that when living
things decay after death, the process of decay takes place with an
increase in entropy. They also point out, correctly, that a
spontaneous change in a system takes place with a high degree of
probability. They fail to realize, however, that probability is
relative, and a spontaneous change in a system can be reversed,
providing the system interacts with its surroundings in such a manner
that the entropy increase in the surroundings is more than enough
to reverse the system's original entropy increase."
..


>
>This, according to you scientists,

No, according to you.  You have misunderstood.  The conclusion is
yours, based on misunderstanding.

>means that the more possible states
>that a system can be in, the higher the entropy (or tendency for
>disorder).  The supposed "primordial Earth" would have been100 % an
>open system, with a continuous input of energy from the sun.
>According to YOUR definition of entropy, the higher the temperature
>and the greater the volume, the higher the entropy.  

If the Earth was an ideal gas, true.  The Earth is not an ideal gas.

>With an open
>system like the Earth, containing, as yet, no closed systems,

You don't even know what a closed system is?

>entropy
>would be so great that only exergonic processes could occur.

No.

>For
>entropy to decrease, deliberate, intelligent, purposeful planning
>would be the only solution for overcoming entropy

NO.  FLOW OF ENTROPY FROM THE EARTH TO THE SUN OCCURS NATURALLY
WOTHOUG ANY INTELLIGENT OF PURPOSEFUL PLANNING.

> -- and none of these
>factors are a part of the primordial scene.

No, they aren't.  But factors that decrease the entropy of the Earth
and of systems on the Earth are part of the primordial scene.  Entropy
flows from the Earth to the Sun.

>No

>
>>snip>
>>>
>>>The Earth is an open system,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>and yet entropy increases.
>>
>>Does it?  Does the overall entropy of the entire Earth increase?
>
>why do you insist on rephrasing ...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/16/01 8:50 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

<snip>

> then how did


>the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
>the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
>pressure, the higher the entropy?

That is true only for ideal gases.  Planetary systems are not ideal
gases.

> After the BB, with 2LoT in
>operation, you would find the particles and "dust bunnies" and
>planetismals all becoming more and more disordered, not the reverse.  
>
>And here's a question just for you, Andrew, off-thread-topic, but I'm
>sure you have an answer:
>
>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,

Yes.

>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?

Yes, except we call them supernovas

> If all
>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>universe is said to be?

No, because it has passed through processes destroy it...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/16/01 8:55 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 10:19:19 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

You can put these molecules and atoms in a jar and they will react.
The final products and their amounts will be different if sunlight
shines on the jar (compared to not allowing sunlight to shine ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 9:00 AM

>>op...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/16/01 9:17 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b67e4.47048052@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

In thermodynamics, a system is defined as the matter within a defined
region. The matter in the rest of the universe is called the surroundings.
If you specify the boundaries, you have a system. Everything else is
semantics.
r...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/16/01 9:19 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 11:44:14 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

this is precisely correct. as i pointed out to zoe, her approach
yields a violation of the FIRST law of thermo since, without a
definition of the things you've stated, she allows energy to be
created and destroyed at will

>
>>
>
>Therefore a system can go from a more probable state (X2) to a less
>probable state (X1), providing S for the system is negative.
>In cases where the system interacts with its surroundings,
>S can be negative providing the over-all entropy of the system and its
>interacting surroundings is posi...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/16/01 9:25 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b606f.45138393@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 11 Jun 2001 05:13:10 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> snip>
> >> the system consists of reactions.  Is that better?
> >
> >NO.  Look at the example of the blendor below. The blender doesnt consist
of
> >blending.
>
> the blender consists of parts that do blending (or do reactions).

Exactly. The system is not reactions and the system doesnt consist of
reactions. The system takes part in the reactions.

> >In the same way the system does not consist of reactions. The
> >system takes part in reactions, but the system does not consist of
> >reactions. A blender takes part in blending, but the blender doesnt
consist
> >of blending.
> >
>
> shucks, you're confusing yourself, I think.  The blender is the
> system.  The blades and power source are the parts that enable
> reactions.  The blender does not take part in the reactions.  It
> provides an environment in which blending can take place.  If the
> blender itself took part in the blending action, you would have puree
> all over the place.

What?

> snip>
>
> >> replication would not occur without the assistance of the genetic
> >> code, would it?
> >
> >OH,  YES IT WOULD.  REPLICATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENETIC CODE.
> >THE GENETIC CODE ONLY  OPERATES IN THE PROCESS OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS.
> >
>
> wow!  It looks like caps are coming into vogue.  I must keep up.
>
> I SHOULD HAVE MADE MYSELF CLEARER:  REPLICATION HERE REFERS TO
> BIOLOGICAL REPLICATION.

YOU NEEDN'T MAKE YOURSELF CLEARER.
OF COURSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGICAL REPLICATION. WHAT OTHER TYPE OF
REPLICATION DID YOU THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT?
The fact that you make this comment suggests once again that you are not
understanding anything at all.
I'll repeat it once more:


REPLICATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENETIC CODE.
THE GENETIC CODE ONLY  OPERATES IN THE PROCESS OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS.

> snip>


> >> >4. replication refers to the synthesis of new DNA using old DNA as
> >template.
> >>
> >> or do you mean that replication really refers to the synthesis of RNA,
> >> using DNA as a template?
> >
> >NO. WHEN I SAY THAT REPLICATION REFERS TO THE SYNTHESIS OF NEW DNA USING
OLD
> >DNA AS A TEMPLATE I MEAN  EXACTLY THAT.
> >
> >THE SYNTHESIS OF RNA IS CALLED TRANSCRIPTION, NOT REPLICATION.
>
> HOW DOES RNA GET FORMED, IF NOT THROUGH REPLICATION?
>

DO YOU HAVE A  READING COMPREHENSIION DI...

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/16/01 10:25 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,

No.

>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?  

If you wish to call novas big bangs, then yes.

>If all
>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>universe is said to be?  If Earth's material was generated back at the
>BB, what kept it in small bits and pieces for 10 billion years or so
>before it finally accreted into what we know as Earth?

Velocity.

mark

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence lenny 6/16/01 10:45 AM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b69a8.47499797@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> >> why?  It is a simple question.  Does sunlight create the type of
> >> system that uses endergonic reactions?  Or does the system have to be
> >> in place first before the sun's energy can drive the system?
> >
> >You are asking me if sunlight produces chemicals?  Are you asking me if
> >sunlight produced the oxygen and hydrogen in the example I gave you?
> >
>
> I am asking if sunlight is known to form systems if oxygen and
> hydrogen and nitrogen and carbon are present and unattached.  Can you
> put these molecules in a jar and see a system form through the input
> of sunlight?
> snip>

You are still confusing systems and reactions.  The system is just the
reactants and products--it doesn't need to be 'formed' through the input of
sunlight.  An energy source is only needed to drive the endergonic
reactions.


Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/16/01 12:30 PM
In article <3b2b5c5f...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

> On 10 Jun 2001 22:52:51 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
> <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b23c325...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> > zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
> >snip>
> >> there is no creationist source that told me that 2LoT contradicts
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Oh really?  Then why are you saying that it does?
> >
>
> you mean that I can say only things that come from creationist
> sources? Are you saying that I cannot think for myself?

The 2LoT argument is one of the most commonly repeated arguments against
evolution, probably because it makes a good sound-bite.  "The 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics says that all systems must proceed from order to
disorder, therefore evolution can't happen!"

I suppose you might have come up with this on your own, but since you
repeat the exact same argument as other creationists, and your
understanding of thermodynamics seems to be acquired from creationist
sources, it seems far more likely that you've just picked up the meme
from other sources.

> >> Besides, this thread has nothing to do with 2LoT
> >> contradicting evolution.  It has to do with whether the replication
> >> system that contains the genetic code arose before or after 2LoT was
> >> in operation.
> >
> >The 2LoT has been in existence since the Big Bang, as it is a simple
> >statistical law about how large amounts of particles are likely to
> >behave.
> >
>
> how do you know this?  Were you present at the Big Bang, those first
> few seconds after (or before) the Big Bang, to be able to state so
> confidently that 2LoT existed back then?

It is not necessary to be there in order to understand what conditions
obtained.

The 2LoT is a statistical law about how randomly moving particles
behave. Once there were particles in existence, the 2LoT applied to
them, simply because there is no other way for randomly moving particles
to behave.

> And if it did, then how did the planetary systems overcome the
> presence of 2LoT, which orders that the greater the volume, and the
> higher the temperature, energy, and pressure, the higher the entropy?

It is impossible for volume, temperature, and pressure to all be getting
higher simultaneously.  As the universe expanded, the temperature and
pressure dropped precipitously.

Moreover, there are forces in the universe, such as gravity, which
provide an opposing force to the "force" of increasing entropy.

>  After the BB, with 2LoT in
> operation, you would find the particles and "dust bunnies" and
> planetismals all becoming more and more disordered, not the reverse.  

Gravity, Zoe.  Gravity.

> And here's a question just for you, Andrew, off-thread-topic, but I'm
> sure you have an answer:
>
> was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
> or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?

The matter that eventually became the earth was produced along with all
other matter and energy at the beginning of the universe.  However, it
was not in the form it is today.  It was mostly hydrogen, helium, and a
smattering of lithium.  The thermonuclear furnaces of stars were needed
to produce the oxygen, silicon, carbon, iron, etc. that make up the
majority of the earth, and which are necessary for life.

(Before you question this by asking "How do you know?  Were you there?...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/16/01 1:40 PM
On 16 Jun 2001 15:28:54 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
<amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>
>Some people have answered your "little bang" question by saying that
>supernovae fit this description.  I think they are wrong.  The so-called
>(and utterly misnamed) Big Bang is entirely different from supernovae.  
>It was an expansion of space, not an explosion into existing space.

You are correct, but my answer makes a better sound bit <grin>.

<snip>

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence RepackRider 6/16/01 5:40 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com  (zoe_althrop) writes:

>I am asking if sunlight is known to form systems if oxygen and
>hydrogen and nitrogen and carbon are present and unattached.

Perhaps you would, but you would not find free oxygen unless life was already
present.  So your analogy ASSUMES that life is present and is thus worthless to
examine origins.
~~ Repack Rider ~~

        ||    Due to overwhelming spam, the address at the    ||
        ||   top of this post is one I only use for newsgroups.  ||
        ||       No e-mail sent to this address is opened.        ||

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/16/01 8:40 PM
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

>Some people have answered your "little bang" question by saying that
>supernovae fit this description.  I think they are wrong.  The so-called
>(and utterly misnamed) Big Bang is entirely different from supernovae.  
>It was an expansion of space, not an explosion into existing space.

Well, yes.  Although I think "big bang" is a term which would more
accurately be applied to supernovae rather than the initial expansion
of the universe.

        Mark

--
/* __  __ __   ____      __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*|  \/  |\ \ / /\ \    / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V /  \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_|  |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/17/01 6:45 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>On 10 Jun 2001 21:59:06 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:

[snippage]


>>The point is, they are all the same thing. I'm a bit at a loss to
>>explain this, I'm not a physics teacher. However, google is your
>>friend, a little search brought me this page:

>>http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/energy_physics_primer.htm

>thank you, Nantko.  I read your link and found it helpful.

Good. Not let's see if you understand its content.

>>Don't be frightened by the formulae, the qualitative discussion is the
>>essential part. It also features a discussion of entropy, which is,
>>though slightly technical correct for the discussions at hand.

>I found the discussion of entropy to be helpful -- however, I notice
>that there is the attempt to make a loophole for evolution by stating
>that even though argon escapes out of a jar and increases entropy
>(this while you're floating out in space), IF, before opening the jar,
>you arranged the microscopic states of the argon molecules in just the
>right way,  you could open the jar for a moment and NOT have the argon
>escape.  I imagine it is on this rare arrangement that evolutionists
>place their bets that entropy can be decreased.

The example (on
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_entropy.htm ) is
followed by:

"The point is that it is highly _improbable_ that the argon is in one
of these special non-escaping states when you open the jar - most of
the states lead to the gas escaping."

IOW, such a state is possible, it is just very unlikely that it...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/17/01 7:40 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b637c.45920364@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

[snip]

> question:  why do you believe that 2LoT does not operate, in the
> absence of intervention, at certain rare moments in evolutionary
> history?
>
> --
> zoe
>

Firstly, I find this question amazing. The physical laws we find to govern
physical processes are not magical things imposed from outside -they are the
consequences of  the very nature of the physical entities (matter and
energy), and they simply express mathematically the way in which these
physical entities interact.  For the second law not to operate, the whole
universe would have to be radically different. What would have to change in
the universe for  a cup of cofee to get hotter rather than colder when
placed on a desk? I can't even imagine it.
Second, the 2lot operates all the time. There is no way round it. Your
comment "in the absence of intervention" is misguided.  With or without
intervention, the 2lot...

Evidence Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue 6/18/01 1:05 AM
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

[snip]


>And here's a question just for you, Andrew, off-thread-topic, but I'm
>sure you have an answer:
>
>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?  If all

>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>universe is said to be?  If Earth's material was generated back at the
>BB, what kept it in small bits and pieces for 10 billion years or so
>before it finally accreted into what we know as Earth?

Zoe, I'm very dissapointed in you. You already know this answwer, as
you and I hav ediscussed it, and you have the astronomical CD that
explains this process in reasonable detail.

Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Ja...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 9:10 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 11:44:14 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

snip>


>It is normal for these systems to form while the 2Lot is operating.
>Many of these systems have been formed in the lab, from simple
>precursors, while the 2Lot of thermodynamics is operating.  Nobody,
>ESPECIALLY including you,  has produced any evidence that these
>systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.
>

you're making my point, I think.  Whatever low-level systems that have
been formed (peptide chains?) they have been formed in a lab setting
where nonspontaneous processes have been used in the formation of the
"systems."  It takes nonspontaneous intervention to create systems in
the presence of 2LoT.

>You have asserted, over and over again, over a period of weeks, that


>these systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.  You
>have presented absolutely no evidence.

How do you state mathematically:  Decrease in entropy in a system is
equal to available energy divided by temperature, where the overall
entropy in the surroundings is equal to zero or higher, but the
entropy within the system is lower?  

Without the kind of intervention that sets up a system that decreases
entropy within it, it seems to me that 2LoT, if left to itself, will
continue on a path of increasing entropy only.  The test of this would
be to remove the systems that serve to reduce entropy and see if
entropy decreases without them.

>  It is clear that you are
>incapable of presenting the evidence, because your misunderstanding of
>thermodynamics is profound.
>
>Evidence would be:
>
>1.  A clear and unambiguous statement of exactly what constitutes the
>system.
>

a system is any unit of inter-related parts, or inter-related units of
inter-related parts that serve a function in which entropy is
decreased.

>2.  A clear and unambiguous definition of the boundary of the system.
>

the boundary of a system can be determined as the point where entropy
stops decreasing and begins increasing.

>3.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all processes that occur
>inside the system.
>

depends on which system.  The human cell, for instance.   The process
of genetic coding and replication would be the processes within this
system that reduce entropy in order to function in growth and
development.  

>4.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all energy or matter
>that crosses the boundary of the system.
>

the chemicals derived from nutrition cross the boundary (cell
membrane) and gets converted into energy that directs the formation of
amino acids into protein, a process that involves decreased entropy
within the system, even as entropy increases outside of the system --
free radicals in the body being evidence of the working of 2LoT.

>5.  If you intend to ignore any of the processes inside the system or
>anything that crosses the boundary of the system, detailed reasoning
>as to why your analysis is valid even if those things are ignored.
>

I'm not following you here.

>6.  CALCULATIONS of the entropy change inside the system.
>

isn't that the sort of thing you scientists do all the time?  Do you
need me to repeat them in order to satisfy you?

>These steps are not necessary because scientists want to suppress
>ideas from lay people.  They are necessary because thermodynamics is a
>complex subject and your analysis and conclusions WILL BE WRONG unless
>you go through them.
>

I suppose you are right.  I need a scientist on my side, I think.  

>
snip>


>>
>>the evidence is in the very math that you understand and use for how
>>2LoT operates.  By the math that says that entropy always increases
>>unless there is a system in place that decreases
>
>
>NO NO NO NO, a thousand times NO.  The math says that entropy change
>consists of entropy generated within the system or entropy flowing
>across the boundary of the system.  The 2LoT says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
>about systems being required to decrease entropy, and in fact system
>that decrease entropy are NOT required (unless you want to use a
>ridiculously simple definition of "system" that is not appropriate
>when discussing thermodynamics).  Entropy _flows_ just like heat.  If
>you put a hot body in cold surroundings, heat flows.  There is no
>_system_ that forces the heat to flow; the heat just flows.  Entropy
>is the same way.  The energy we receive from the Sun is a flow of
>entropy from us to the Sun, and there is no system required; entropy
>just flows.
>

I'm not sure what your point is.  I agree with you that entropy just
flows -- from hot to cold -- but how does that explain entropy that
flows from cold to hot?  I agree that 2LoT says nothing about systems
being required to decrease entropy.  All it says it that entropy flows
from hot to cold.  We take it from there and manipulate the
environment so that entropy can temporarily flow from cold to hot.  

>
>> it, it becomes
>>evident that those systems that decrease entropy could not,
>>themselves, have FORMED in the presence of 2LoT, since it takes
>>nonspontaneou (endergonic) processes to form systems that decrease
>>entropy.
>
>No.  No. No.  It does NOT TAKE NONSPANTANEOUS PROCESS TO DECREAS
>ENTROPY.  NO SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO DECREASE ENTROPY.  ENTROPY FLOWS.

so, Jon, what do you do about flowing entropy?  Do you sit placidly
by, relaxing in the stream of entropy, a-slip-sliding down to
equilibrium and death?  Or do you buck the flow, utilizing
nonspontaneous processes to reverse the flow?

snip>


>>
>>your own definition of entropy proves it.  I don't have to.  
>
>Please expound.  Define entropy rigorously, list the relevant
>equations, do the calculations.

why?  They're already done.  This is nothing new.

>
>>
>>Entropy = k log(N).  K being Boltzmann's constant multiplied by the
>>log of the number of possible states that a system can be in.
>
>Whoops, you blew it.  Entropy = k log (N)  for some simple systems
>such as ideal gases.

you mean the very ideal gases that formed the big bang?

> Entropy does NOT equal k log(N) in the most
>general case.  And that equation ONLY WORKS FOR ISOLATED SYSTEMS.
>
>From <http://members.home.net/fsteiger/2nd-law.htm> :
>

well, the bottom line, after reading that, seems to be that the system
can be restored to its original state through input of energy, whether
that source be the sun or whatever.  Sounds neat, except systems are
never restored 100 % to their original state -- that is why we have
death with us.

>"Returning to the relationship between entropy and probability,
>keeping in mind its practical limitations in determining whether or
>not a given reaction can proceed:
>
>As we have seen before, dS can be either positive or negative.
>When dS is negative equation (7) can be written:
>
>   -dS = -K ln(X2/X1)
>       = K ln(X1/X2)
>

you do the math VERY well.  Why ask it of me?

>Therefore a system can go from a more probable state (X2) to a less
>probable state (X1), providing S for the system is negative.
>In cases where the system interacts with its surroundings,
>S can be negative providing the over-all entropy of the system and its
>interacting surroundings is positive; the over-all change ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 9:20 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 11:49:15 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)


>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> then how did
>>the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
>>the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
>>pressure, the higher the entropy?
>
>That is true only for ideal gases.  Planetary systems are not ideal
>gases.
>

they once were, by your worldview.  

snip>


>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>
>Yes.
>
>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?
>
>Yes, except we call them supernovas
>

so the supernovas are made up of the material originating from the big
bang?

>> If all
>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>universe is said to be?
>
>No, because it has passed through processes destroy its identity.
>

I thought it was these processes that would establish their age?  If
you...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 9:25 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 13:22:24 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
VandeWettering) wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>
>No.
>

so you and Jon disagree.  Who has more clout that I should believe one
over the other?

>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?  
>
>If you wish to call novas big bangs, then yes.
>
>>If all
>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>universe is said to be?  If Earth's material was generated back at the
>>BB, what kept it in small bits and pieces for 10 billion years or so
>>before it finally accreted into what we know as Earth?
>
>Velocity.
>

what kept the Earth's bits and pieces speeding along at a higher rate
than the older part of the universe?  10 billion years is an awful
long time to keep up momentum -- at l...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 9:50 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 15:28:54 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
<amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

snip>


>
>The 2LoT argument is one of the most commonly repeated arguments against
>evolution, probably because it makes a good sound-bite.  "The 2nd Law of
>Thermodynamics says that all systems must proceed from order to
>disorder, therefore evolution can't happen!"
>
>I suppose you might have come up with this on your own, but since you
>repeat the exact same argument as other creationists, and your
>understanding of thermodynamics seems to be acquired from creationist
>sources, it seems far more likely that you've just picked up the meme
>from other sources.
>

I do not make a habit of reading creationist sources because I
recognize there can be bias -- it's natural.  So I've been reading
evolutionist sites in order to understand where you'e coming from.  

snip>


>> how do you know this?  Were you present at the Big Bang, those first
>> few seconds after (or before) the Big Bang, to be able to state so
>> confidently that 2LoT existed back then?
>
>It is not necessary to be there in order to understand what conditions
>obtained.
>
>The 2LoT is a statistical law about how randomly moving particles
>behave. Once there were particles in existence, the 2LoT applied to
>them, simply because there is no other way for randomly moving particles
>to behave.
>

and yet you have the gases of the big bang acting contrary to 2LoT.

>> And if it did, then how did the planetary systems overcome the
>> presence of 2LoT, which orders that the greater the volume, and the
>> higher the temperature, energy, and pressure, the higher the entropy?
>
>It is impossible for volume, temperature, and pressure to all be getting
>higher simultaneously.  As the universe expanded, the temperature and
>pressure dropped precipitously.
>

exactly where in location did this temperature drop precipitously?  I
was under the impression that a lot of heat was generated at the big
bang, not massive precipitous cooling.

>Moreover, there are forces in the universe, such as gravity, which
>provide an opposing force to the "force" of increasing entropy.
>

why is gravity not now providing an opposing force to the "force" of
increasing entropy?  Why is gravity not now factored into the equation
for 2LoT?

>>  After the BB, with 2LoT in
>> operation, you would find the particles and "dust bunnies" and
>> planetismals all becoming more and more disordered, not the reverse.  
>
>Gravity, Zoe.  Gravity.
>

what about it?  Spin, Andrew, spin.  

Anyway, you're talking about a time before mass was of sufficient size
to exert gravitational pull.

>> And here's a question just for you, Andrew, off-thread-topic, but I'm
>> sure you have an answer:
>>
>> was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>> or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?
>
>The matter that eventually became the earth was produced along with all
>other matter and energy at the beginning of the universe.  However, it
>was not in the form it is today.  It was mostly hydrogen, helium, and a
>smattering of lithium.  The thermonuclear furnaces of stars were needed
>to produce the oxygen, silicon, carbon, iron, etc. that make up the
>majority of the earth, and which are necessary for life.
>

so energy was converted to mass.  Gases became solid, in defiance of
2LoT.

>(Before you question this by asking "How do you know?  Were you there?",
>I will note that astrophysicists and cosmologists have concluded this
>because we have observed the formation of heavy elements in stars,
>novae, and supernovae, and we have never seen any other mechanism
>possible for creating heavy elements from the lightest ones, and that by
>and large the universe still is mostly hydrogen and helium with a
>smattering of ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/18/01 9:50 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:16:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 11:49:15 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> then how did
>>>the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
>>>the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
>>>pressure, the higher the entropy?
>>
>>That is true only for ideal gases.  Planetary systems are not ideal
>>gases.
>>
>
>they once were, by your worldview.  

why? ideal gases are not subject to gravity. why are planetary systems
like ideal gases? (of course, zoe's view of natural laws
is...ahem...unique).

>
>snip>
>>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?
>>
>>Yes, except we call them supernovas
>>
>
>so the supernovas are made up of the material originating from the big
>bang?

hydrogen and helium

>
>>> If all
>>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>>universe is said to be?
>>
>>No, because it has passed through processes destroy its identity.
>>
>
>I thought it was these processes that would establish their age?  If
>you could detect more or less metallicity in the spectra ...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/18/01 9:50 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:24:09 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 13:22:24 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>so you and Jon disagree.  Who has more clout that I should believe one
>over the other?

zoe, you should really, and truly...learn how to read.

the HYDROGEN, HELIUM, some LITHIUM, and Be were formed at the time of
the BB. OTHER elements were formed in stars.

>
>>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?  
>>
>>If you wish to call novas big bangs, then yes.
>>
>>>If all
>>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>>universe is said to be?  If Earth's material was generated back at the
>>>BB, what kept it in small bits and pieces fo...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/18/01 10:13 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:08:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 11:44:14 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>


>wrote:
>
>snip>
>>It is normal for these systems to form while the 2Lot is operating.
>>Many of these systems have been formed in the lab, from simple
>>precursors, while the 2Lot of thermodynamics is operating.  Nobody,
>>ESPECIALLY including you,  has produced any evidence that these
>>systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.
>>
>
>you're making my point, I think.  Whatever low-level systems that have
>been formed (peptide chains?) they have been formed in a lab setting
>where nonspontaneous processes have been used in the formation of the
>"systems."  It takes nonspontaneous intervention to create systems in
>the presence of 2LoT.

and what about inside your body...peptide chains are formed there as
well. it takes non spontaneous intervention there as well...entirely
natural and entirely in accord with the SLOT>

>
>>You have asserted, over and over again, over a period of weeks, that
>>these systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.  You
>>have presented absolutely no evidence.
>
>How do you state mathematically:  Decrease in entropy in a system is
>equal to available energy divided by temperature, where the overall
>entropy in the surroundings is equal to zero or higher, but the
>entropy within the system is lower?  

formation of a PEPTIDE bond is done with the RELEASE OF HEAT into the
environment. it happens inside your body when amino acids are
converted to peptides. you, being a creationist, just refuse to count.
you pretend there is NO surroundings where heat can be dumped.
according to you, we should all be dead because we have no body heat.

>
>>
>
>>4.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all energy or matter
>>that crosses the boundary of the system.
>>
>
>the chemicals derived from nutrition cross the boundary (cell
>membrane) and gets converted into energy that directs the formation of
>amino acids into protein, a process that involves decreased entropy
>within the system, even as entropy increases outside of the system --
>free radicals in the body being evidence of the working of 2LoT.

no, thats not ...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 10:50 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 04:00:40 -0400, "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue"
<ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote:

snip>

>Zoe, I'm very dissapointed in you. You already know this answwer, as
>you and I hav ediscussed it, and you have the astronomical CD that
>explains this process in reasonable detail.
>

Ian, I was reviewing that very CD this past weekend.  And, I have
indeed read about galactic archeology on the CD.  However, it couches
its explanations in terms like the following:

"At present it is extremely uncertain as to how "lumps" of gas evolve
into things dense enough to form galaxies; there are many competing
ideas."  

I find this ambivalence very unsatisfactory as to the acceptability of
the information.  

Another quote:  "The fossil record written in the spectra and orbits
of the stars is confusing, and we are not quite sure what it is
telling us."

It talks about monolithic collapse, where, if the metal-poor clusters
all formed at once, they should all be about the same a...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 11:05 AM
On 17 Jun 2001 22:36:38 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>


>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b2b637c.45920364@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> question:  why do you believe that 2LoT does not operate, in the
>> absence of intervention, at certain rare moments in evolutionary
>> history?
>>
>> --
>> zoe
>>
>
>Firstly, I find this question amazing. The physical laws we find to govern
>physical processes are not magical things imposed from outside -they are the
>consequences of  the very nature of the physical entities (matter and
>energy), and they simply express mathematically the way in which these
>physical entities interact.  For the second law not to operate, the whole
>universe would have to be radically different.

would the absence of death, deterioration, and decay be a case of a
radically different universe?

>What would have to change in
>the universe for  a cup of cofee to get hotter rather than colder when
>place...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 11:05 AM
On 17 Jun 2001 21:43:29 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

>IOW, such a state is possible, it is just very unlikely that it will
>arise naturally.
>

which is the basis on which macro-evolutionary theory seems to be
built -- on possible states that are very unlikely to arise natural...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/18/01 11:10 AM
On 16 Jun 2001 11:52:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 10:19:19 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>snip>


>>I am asking if sunlight is known to form systems if oxygen and
>>hydrogen and nitrogen and carbon are present and unattached.  Can you
>>put these molecules in a jar and see a system form through the input
>>of sunlight?
>
>You can put these molecules and atoms in a jar and they will react.
>The final products and their amounts will be different if sunlight
>shines on the jar (compared to not allowing sunlight to shine on the
>same jar).
>

please for an example of a biological system forming due to the
exposure of a jar of carbon/hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen atoms to
sunlight.


--
zoe

Evidence Mark VandeWettering 6/18/01 11:25 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:24:09 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 16 Jun 2001 13:22:24 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>so you and Jon disagree.  Who has more clout that I should believe one
>over the other?

I don't think you should believe either faceless internet entity on the
basis of `clout', nor do I think you should `believe' either of us.  You
should strive to understand the prevailing scientific theories, whether
ultimately you believe them or not.

As for Jon and my apparent disagreement, I suspect it boils down to what
we mean by "material" (although I haven't gone back and looked at Jon's
postings, so I could be entirely way off base).  If `material' is protons
and neutrons, then perhaps Jon is correct.  If material is 'carbon and iron',
then I suspect my claim is closer, although most hydrogen was formed in
the Big Bang, so perhaps my one syllable answer was a tad incomplete (as
might have been expec...

Evidence wf...@ptd.net 6/18/01 11:55 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 14:02:41 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 17 Jun 2001 21:43:29 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wr
>>"The point is that it is highly _improbable_ that the argon is in one
>>of these special non-escaping states when you open the jar - most of
>>the states lead to the gas escaping."
>>
>>IOW, such a state is possible, it is just very unlikely that it will
>>arise naturally.
>>
>
>which is the basis on which macro-evolutionary theory seems to be
>built -- on possible states that are very unlikely to arise naturally.

which is a comment one typically expects from a creationist. first she
claims the 2nd law doesnt apply...then she gets frustrated when shown
how little she understands...

>
>>
>>My problem with these ideas is, that in the end they boil down to the
>>same thing. The energy from the sun is only free in the sense that we
>>don't get an invoice for it. For the sun it makes no difference where
>>its radiation goes and if it i...

Evidence Steve Carlip 6/18/01 12:25 PM
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2001 15:28:54 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
> <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:

> and yet you have the gases of the big bang acting contrary to 2LoT.

Why, specifically, do you believe this?  

I suspect you are mistaking the actual second law of thermodynamics
with some oversimplified popularization about messy rooms or some
such.  If you *really* want to understand this, you're going to have to
take a little time and learn how the entropy of a system---which is
a *number*, with a definite value---is actually calculated.  Once you
do this, you can go look at the calculations for the very early universe.
You won't find any violations.

>>As the universe expanded, the temperature and
>>pressure dropped precipitously.
 
> exactly where in location did this temperature drop precipitously?  

Pretty much all over the universe.   We have very strong evidence
that the universe had an average temperature of about a billion
Kelvin a few minutes after the big bang (this is when the nucleo-
synthesis of the light elements took place).  It was down to about
3000 K half a million years after the bi...

Evidence leonardo dasso 6/18/01 12:50 PM

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b2e4138.233784585@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 17 Jun 2001 22:36:38 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b2b637c.45920364@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> question:  why do you believe that 2LoT does not operate, in the
> >> absence of intervention, at certain rare moments in evolutionary
> >> history?
> >>
> >> --
> >> zoe
> >>
> >
> >Firstly, I find this question amazing. The physical laws we find to
govern
> >physical processes are not magical things imposed from outside -they are
the
> >consequences of  the very nature of the physical entities (matter and
> >energy), and they simply express mathematically the way in which these
> >physical entities interact.  For the second law not to operate, the whole
> >universe would have to be radically different.
>
> would the absence of death, deterioration, and decay b...
Evidence Jon Fleming 6/18/01 3:35 PM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:16:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 11:49:15 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> then how did
>>>the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
>>>the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
>>>pressure, the higher the entropy?
>>
>>That is true only for ideal gases.  Planetary systems are not ideal
>>gases.
>>
>
>they once were, by your worldview.  

Pretty much true.  So what?

>
>snip>
>>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?
>>
>>Yes, except we call them supernovas
>>
>
>so the supernovas are made up of the material originating from the big
>bang?
>
>>> If all
>>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>>universe is said to be?
>>
>>No, because it has passed through processes destroy its identity.
>>
>
>I thought it was these processes that would establish their age?  If
>you could detect mor...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/18/01 3:35 PM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:08:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 11:44:14 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>


>wrote:
>
>snip>
>>It is normal for these systems to form while the 2Lot is operating.
>>Many of these systems have been formed in the lab, from simple
>>precursors, while the 2Lot of thermodynamics is operating.  Nobody,
>>ESPECIALLY including you,  has produced any evidence that these
>>systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.
>>
>
>you're making my point, I think.  Whatever low-level systems that have
>been formed (peptide chains?) they have been formed in a lab setting
>where nonspontaneous processes have been used in the formation of the
>"systems."  It takes nonspontaneous intervention to create systems in
>the presence of 2LoT.

Whatever low-level systems have been formed in the lab have been
for,ed by mixing basic chemicals and (sometimes) applying energy in a
form known to be available on the early Earth, such as sunlight or
lightning.  So nonspontaneous intervention, so conversion systems
other than the basic chemicals themselves.

>
>>You have asserted, over and over again, over a period of weeks, that
>>these systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.  You
>>have presented absolutely no evidence.
>
>How do you state mathematically:  Decrease in entropy in a system is
>equal to available energy divided by temperature, where the overall
>entropy in the surroundings is equal to zero or higher, but the
>entropy within the system is lower?

I posted the equation in the message to which you replied:

dS/dt + sigma((dm/dt)*Sm) = sigma(Q/T) + Sg

where dS/dt is the change of entropy inside the system with time,
dm/dt is mass flow across the system boundary, Sm is the entropy
associated with the mass flow, Q is heat, T is the temperature at
which the flow occurs across the boundary, and Sg is the entropy
generated inside the system.


>
>Without the kind of intervention that sets up a system that decreases
>entropy within it, it seems to me that 2LoT, if left to itself, will
>continue on a path of increasing entropy only.  The test of this would
>be to remove the systems that serve to reduce entropy and see if
>entropy decreases without them.

Since there are no systems to remove (in the case of formation of
biological precursors on the early Earth), this test is meaningless.

>
>>  It is clear that you are
>>incapable of presenting the evidence, because your misunderstanding of
>>thermodynamics is profound.
>>
>>Evidence would be:
>>
>>1.  A clear and unambiguous statement of exactly what constitutes the
>>system.
>>
>
>a system is any unit of inter-related parts, or inter-related units of
>inter-related parts that serve a function in which entropy is
>decreased.

Not a definition of the word "system", a definition of the exact parts
or units of a particular system in which you are interested.

>
>>2.  A clear and unambiguous definition of the boundary of the system.
>>
>
>the boundary of a system can be determined as the point where entropy
>stops decreasing and begins increasing.

No.  The boundary of a system is a three-dimensional (occasionally
two-dimensional)  continuous closed surface with no holes or
"interruptions".  Everything inside that surface is the system,
everything outside that surface is the surroundings.  You need to
identify that surface for the particular system in which you are
interested.


>
>>3.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all processes that occur
>>inside the system.
>>
>
>depends on which system.

Exactly.  Pick a system and identify all the processes that occur
inside it.

>The human cell, for instance.   The process
>of genetic coding and replication would be the processes within this
>system that reduce entropy in order to function in growth and
>development.  
>
>>4.  A clear and unambiguous identification of all energy or matter
>>that crosses the boundary of the system.
>>
>
>the chemicals derived from nutrition cross the boundary (cell
>membrane)

Identify all the chemicals.

>and gets converted into energy that directs the formation of
>amino acids into protein, a process that involves decreased entropy
>within the system, even as entropy increases outside of the system --
>free radicals in the body being evidence of the working of 2LoT.

You're jumping ahead.  You're not yet ready to talk about entropy
change.

>
>>5.  If you intend to ignore any of the processes inside the system or
>>anything that crosses the boundary of the system, detailed reasoning
>>as to why your analysis is valid even if those things are ignored.
>>
>
>I'm not following you here.

Does heat cross the boundary of the system?  If so, either include it
in your analysis or explain why you are not including it.

>
>>6.  CALCULATIONS of the entropy change inside the system.
>>
>
>isn't that the sort of thing you scientists do all the time?  Do you
>need me to repeat them in order to satisfy you?

It's the kind of thing thermodynamicists do.  You haven't presented
any yet.  A thermodynamic argument without them is just hand-waving.

>
>>These steps are not necessary because scientists want to suppress
>>ideas from lay people.  They are necessary because thermodynamics is a
>>complex subject and your analysis and conclusions WILL BE WRONG unless
>>you go through them.
>>
>
>I suppose you are right.  I need a scientist on my side, I think.  

You need a thermodynamicist to do the calculations.  Whether or not
that thermodynamicist winds up on your side depends on the restuff of
the calculations

>
>>
>snip>
>>>
>>>the evidence is in the very math that you understand and use for how
>>>2LoT operates.  By the math that says that entropy always increases
>>>unless there is a system in place that decreases
>>
>>
>>NO NO NO NO, a thousand times NO.  The math says that entropy change
>>consists of entropy generated within the system or entropy flowing
>>across the boundary of the system.  The 2LoT says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
>>about systems being required to decrease entropy, and in fact system
>>that decrease entropy are NOT required (unless you want to use a
>>ridiculously simple definition of "system" that is not appropriate
>>when discussing thermodynamics).  Entropy _flows_ just like heat.  If
>>you put a hot body in cold surroundings, heat flows.  There is no
>>_system_ that forces the heat to flow; the heat just flows.  Entropy
>>is the same way.  The energy we receive from the Sun is a flow of
>>entropy from us to the Sun, and there is no system required; entropy
>>just flows.
>>
>
>I'm not sure what your point is.  I agree with you that entropy just
>flows -- from hot to cold -- but how does that explain entropy that
>flows from cold to hot?

It doesn't.  But note that mass flow is also entropy flow.  Mass flow
can decease entropy.

Also, the question of whether the surroundings are doing work on the
system (or vice versa) must be considered.

>I agree that 2LoT says nothing about systems
>being required to decrease entropy.  All it says it that entropy flows
>from hot to cold.

It says a lot more than that.

> We take it from there and manipulate the
>environment so that entropy can temporarily flow from cold to hot.  

Not necessary. Entropy flows in other ways.

>
>>
>>> it, it becomes
>>>evident that those systems that decrease entropy could not,
>>>themselves, have FORMED in the presence of 2LoT, since it takes
>>>nonspontaneou (endergonic) processes to form systems that decrease
>>>entropy.
>>
>>No.  No. No.  It does NOT TAKE NONSPANTANEOUS PROCESS TO DECREAS
>>ENTROPY.  NO SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO DECREASE ENTROPY.  ENTROPY FLOWS.
>
>so, Jon, what do you do about flowing entropy?  Do you sit placidly
>by, relaxing in the stream of entropy, a-slip-sliding down to
>equilibrium and death?  Or do you buck the flow, utilizing
>nonspontaneous processes to reverse the flow?

Don't take the analogy too far.  Do the math.

>
>snip>
>>>
>>>your own definition of entropy proves it.  I don't have to.  
>>
>>Please expound.  Define entropy rigorously, list the relevant
>>equations, do the calculations.
>
>why?  They're already done.  This is nothing new.

You don't understand the rigorous definition of entropy.  You don't
know which equations are relevant  You haven't shown or referred to
any calculations _specific_ _to_ the formation of biological
molecules; if you know that they have been done, post references to
them.

>
>>
>>>
>>>Entropy = k log(N).  K being Boltzmann's constant multiplied by the
>>>log of the number of possible states that a system can be in.
>>
>>Whoops, you blew it.  Entropy = k log (N)  for some simple systems
>>such as ideal gases.
>
>you mean the very ideal gases that formed the big bang?

No, the big bang was not gas, and when it cooled enough to be gas that
gas wasn't ideal.  An "ideal gas" is a model; an approximation to a
real gas that is useful for getting very close approximations to the
behavior of real gases, and is much easier to calculate with than a
real gas.  It's a fundamental concept in thermodynamics and in some
other areas.

>
>> Entropy does NOT equal k log(N) in the most
>>general case.  And that equation ONLY WORKS FOR ISOLATED SYSTEMS.
>>
>>From <http://members.home.net/fsteiger/2nd-law.htm> :
>>
>
>well, the bottom line, after reading that, seems to be that the system
>can be restored to its original state through input of energy, whether
>that source be the sun or whatever.  Sounds neat, except systems are
>never restored 100 % to their original state -- that is why we have
>death with us.
>
>>"Returning to the relationship between entropy and probability,
>>keeping in mind its practical limitations in determining whether or
>>not a given reaction can proceed:
>>
>>As we have seen before, dS can be either positive or negative.
>>When dS is negative equation (7) can be written:
>>
>>   -dS = -K ln(X2/X1)
>>       = K ln(X1/X2)
>>
>
>you do the math VERY well.  Why ask it of me?

Because it's a lot of work, and I have no particular interest in
expending the effort,...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/18/01 3:35 PM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:24:09 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 13:22:24 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>so you and Jon disagree.  Who has more clout that I should believe one
>over the other?

In this case, we are both correct.  It depends on exactly how you
interpret "material ... generated at the time of the Big Bang".

>
>>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?  
>>
>>If you wish to call novas big bangs, then yes.
>>
>>>If all
>>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>>universe is said to be?  If Earth's material was generated back at the
>>>BB, what kept it in small bits and pieces for 10 billion years or so
>>>before it fin...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/18/01 3:40 PM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:24:09 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 13:22:24 -0400, ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark
>VandeWettering) wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>so you and Jon disagree.  Who has more clout that I should believe one
>over the other?
>
>>>or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?  
>>
>>If you wish to call novas big bangs, then yes.
>>
>>>If all
>>>material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,
>>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>>universe is said to be?  If Earth's material was generated back at the
>>>BB, what kept it in small bits and pieces for 10 billion years or so
>>>before it finally accreted into what we know as Earth?
>>
>>Velocity.
>>
>
>what kept the Earth's bits and pieces speeding along at a higher rate...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/18/01 3:45 PM
On 18 Jun 2001 12:49:38 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

<snip>


>and yet you have the gases of the big bang acting contrary to 2LoT.
<snip>

Zoe, your intuition about what is and is not contrary to the 2LOT is
incorrect.  Your understanding of the 2LoT is nonexistent.

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/18/01 3:50 PM
On 18 Jun 2001 14:07:22 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

I don't know of one.  Please for a _calculation_ that shows it could
not happen.  Not a probability calculation, because improbably things
happen; a therm...

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/18/01 4:15 PM
In article <3b2e3db9....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

> >As far as I know the 2LoT has operated without fail from the beginning
> >of time, at least far longer than the solar system exists and
> >consquently throughout life's history. There is no reason to assume it
> >ever took a day off.
> >
>
> those singularities are days off -- those exceptions that say, "though
> highly unlikely, it must have happened."

Unlikely things are not violations of the 2LoT.  Each hand dealt in
poker is highly unlikely.

And what do singularities have to do with it?

--
|          Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu>         |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic.  There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods         |

Evidence Andrew Glasgow 6/18/01 4:40 PM
In article <3b2e2a31....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
 zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:

> On 16 Jun 2001 15:28:54 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
> <amg39.REMOVETHIS@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >The 2LoT argument is one of the most commonly repeated arguments against
> >evolution, probably because it makes a good sound-bite.  "The 2nd Law of
> >Thermodynamics says that all systems must proceed from order to
> >disorder, therefore evolution can't happen!"
> >
> >I suppose you might have come up with this on your own, but since you
> >repeat the exact same argument as other creationists, and your
> >understanding of thermodynamics seems to be acquired from creationist
> >sources, it seems far more likely that you've just picked up the meme
> >from other sources.
> >
>
> I do not make a habit of reading creationist sources because I
> recognize there can be bias -- it's natural.  So I've been reading
> evolutionist sites in order to understand where you'e coming from.  

*scratches head*

So you got the idea that evolution violates the 2LoT by reading a
pro-evolution website that says it doesn't?

O_o

The way you think is very interesting.

For chinese values of interesting.

> snip>
> >> how do you know this?  Were you present at the Big Bang, those first
> >> few seconds after (or before) the Big Bang, to be able to state so
> >> confidently that 2LoT existed back then?
> >
> >It is not necessary to be there in order to understand what conditions
> >obtained.
> >
> >The 2LoT is a statistical law about how randomly moving particles
> >behave. Once there were particles in existence, the 2LoT applied to
> >them, simply because there is no other way for randomly moving particles
> >to behave.
> >
>
> and yet you have the gases of the big bang acting contrary to 2LoT.

Where?

> >> And if it did, then how did the planetary systems overcome the
> >> presence of 2LoT, which orders that the greater the volume, and the
> >> higher the temperature, energy, and pressure, the higher the entropy?
> >
> >It is impossible for volume, temperature, and pressure to all be getting
> >higher simultaneously.  As the universe expanded, the temperature and
> >pressure dropped precipitously.
> >
>
> exactly where in location did this temperature drop precipitously?

Everywhere.  The cosmic expansion takes places everywhere.

>  I
> was under the impression that a lot of heat was generated at the big
> bang, not massive precipitous cooling.

Energy was being generated, mostly by the annihilation reactions of
matter/antimatter, which made the particles that were not annihilated
move at very high speeds.  However, the expansion of space (which, if
inflationary models are correct, happened at many times the speed of
light) was constantly increasing the volume and thereby decreasing the
temperature and volume.

Ideal gas laws: all else being equal, T = P/V.  (IIRC, that is.)

> >Moreover, there are forces in the universe, such as gravity, which
> >provide an opposing force to the "force" of increasing entropy.
> >
>
> why is gravity not now providing an opposing force to the "force" of
> increasing entropy?

It is.

>  Why is gravity not now factored into the equation
> for 2LoT?

Because for most of the systems we study with thermodynamics, the
gravitational attraction between the particles is insignificant.

> >>  After the BB, with 2LoT in
> >> operation, you would find the particles and "dust bunnies" and
> >> planetismals all becoming more and more disordered, not the reverse.  
> >
> >Gravity, Zoe.  Gravity.
> >
>
> what about it?  Spin, Andrew, spin.  

It attracts.

> Anyway, you're talking about a time before mass was of sufficient size
> to exert gravitational pull.

Nope. Mass always exerts gravitational pull.

> >> And here's a question just for you, Andrew, off-thread-topic, but I'm
> >> sure you have an answer:
> >>
> >> was the material for the Earth generated at the time of the Big Bang,
> >> or were there smaller big bangs that produced the Earth?
> >
> >The matter that eventually became the earth was produced along with all
> >other matter and energy at the beginning of the universe.  However, it
> >was not in the form it is today.  It was mostly hydrogen, helium, and a
> >smattering of lithium.  The thermonuclear furnaces of stars were needed
> >to produce the oxygen, silicon, carbon, iron, etc. that make up the
> >majority of the earth, and which are necessary for life.
> >
>
> so energy was converted to mass.

No, mass was converted to energy, at least in most of the reactions.  
Hydrogen/Helium->(any element lighter than Iron-56) is a exothermic
reaction.

>  Gases became solid, in defiance of 2LoT.

Gas becoming solid is not a violation of the 2LoT.  Or do you think that
the 2LoT is violated every time it snows?

> >(Before you question this by asking "How do you know?  Were you there?",
> >I will note that astrophysicists and cosmologists have concluded this
> >because we have observed the formation of heavy elements in stars,
> >novae, and supernovae, and we have never seen any other mechanism
> >possible for creating heavy elements from the lightest ones, and that by
> >and large the universe still is mostly hydrogen and helium with a
> >smattering of lithium, with heavy elements only occuring where they
> >could have been made by stars.)
> >
> >Some people have answered your "little bang" question by saying that
> >supernovae fit ...

Evidence Nantko Schanssema 6/18/01 5:05 PM
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>On 17 Jun 2001 21:43:29 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>wrote:

>>zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>>>On 10 Jun 2001 21:59:06 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
>>>wrote:

>>[snippage]
>>>>The point is, they are all the same thing. I'm a bit at a loss to
>>>>explain this, I'm not a physics teacher. However, google is your
>>>>friend, a little search brought me this page:

>>>>http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/energy_physics_primer.htm

>>>thank you, Nantko.  I read your link and found it helpful.

>>Good. Now let's see if you understand its content.

>>>>Don't be frightened by the formulae, the qualitative discussion is the
>>>>essential part. It also features a discussion of entropy, which is,
>>>>though slightly technical correct for the discussions at hand.

>>>I found the discussion of entropy to be helpful -- however, I notice
>>>that there is the attempt to make a loophole for evolution by stating
>>>that even though argon escapes out of a jar and increases entropy
>>>(this while you're floating out in space), IF, before opening the jar,
>>>you arranged the microscopic states of the argon molecules in just the
>>>right way,  you could open the jar for a moment and NOT have the argon
>>>escape.  I imagine it is on this rare arrangement that evolutionists
>>>place their bets that entropy can be decreased.

>>The example (on
>>http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_entropy.htm ) is
>>followed by:

>>"The point is that it is highly _improbable_ that the argon is in one
>>of these special non-escaping states when you open the jar - most of
>>the states lead to the gas escaping."

>>IOW, such a state is possible, it is just very unlikely that it will
>>arise naturally.

>which is the basis on which macro-evolutionary theory seems to be
>built -- on possible states that are very unlikely to arise naturally.

Not at all. All life we know of, from the simplest bacteria to much
more complex multicellular beings, such as trees and octopi, use
external energy sources to create and maintain those unlikely
thermodynamic states. There's nothing miraculous about it, you and I
do it every microsecond of our lives, without a moment's worth of
thought.

Evolution has not much to do with all this. It is the fact that the
properties of individual life-forms change over time. This presupposes
that they live to start with. If life isn't against the 2loT, and it
isn't, otherwise it wouldn't be there, so neither is evolution.

>>Anyway, this is not of particular interest in a debat...

Evidence H,R.Gruemm 6/18/01 10:15 PM
Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message news:<c30tit8ucqju8v09ujbtddic93bdt2uqb3@4ax.com>...

> On 18 Jun 2001 12:16:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Jun 2001 11:49:15 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 16 Jun 2001 09:36:07 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>> then how did
> >>>the planetary systems overcome the presence of 2LoT, which orders that
> >>>the greater the volume, and the higher the temperature, energy, and
> >>>pressure, the higher the entropy?
> >>
> >>That is true only for ideal gases.  Planetary systems are not ideal
> >>gases.
> >>
> >
> >they once were, by your worldview.  
>
> Pretty much true.  So what?

Beg to differ. Gases with long-range purely attractive forces (like
gravitation) are never ideal gases, because they are thermodynamically
unstable against collapse.

HRG.


<snip>

Evidence Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue 6/19/01 12:00 AM
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 18 Jun 2001 12:08:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 11:44:14 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>


>wrote:
>
>snip>
>>It is normal for these systems to form while the 2Lot is operating.
>>Many of these systems have been formed in the lab, from simple
>>precursors, while the 2Lot of thermodynamics is operating.  Nobody,
>>ESPECIALLY including you,  has produced any evidence that these
>>systems could not have formed while the 2LoT is operating.
>
>you're making my point, I think.  Whatever low-level systems that have
>been formed (peptide chains?) they have been formed in a lab setting
>where nonspontaneous processes have been used in the formation of the
>"systems."  It takes nonspontaneous intervention to create systems in
>the presence of 2LoT.

No, because the the lab systems are _representitive_ of real world
systems. Sontaneous reactions _drive_ the nonspontaneous react...

Evidence Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue 6/19/01 12:00 AM
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 18 Jun 2001 14:07:22 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

Self replicating proteinoid microspheres (does require drying as well)

Vaughan G, Przybylsk...

Evidence Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue 6/19/01 12:00 AM
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 18 Jun 2001 12:16:04 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2001 11:49:15 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>> If all material for the universe was generated at the time of the Big Bang,


>>>should Earth's material date to the 15 billion years or so that the
>>>universe is said to be?
>>
>>No, because it has passed through processes destroy its identity.
>>
>
>I thought it was these processes that would establish their age?  If
>you could detect more or less metallicity in the spectra of stars, you
>could supposedly identify their ages.  

Yes (bearing in mind that "metal" to an astrophysicist is anything
heavier than lithium), you can identify the age of the star in this
way. However, during the supernova explosion, most of the origial
contents of the star are converted to something else. The primordial
hydrogen has been converted to helium, carbon, oxygen, silicon and
iron etc.by fusion reactions. While the hydrogen (and some of the
helium) originated in the Big Bang, the other elements date from the
time of the supernova or a "short" time before. The silicon, oxygen
and carbon (and uranium) that formed the earth is only between 5-7
billion years old.

Remember, Earth is dated by radioactive isotope...

Evidence Jon Fleming 6/19/01 2:45 PM
On 19 Jun 2001 02:59:37 -0400, "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue"
<ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote:

<snip>
> There are no intelligent
>agents in the atmosphere of Titan making sure the experiments turn out
>the way they do on Earth.

At least, that's the conclusion we reach on the basis of the available
evidence.

>
>Cheers! Ian
>=====================================================
>Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
>reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
>Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Evidence Gordon Davisson 6/24/01 2:20 PM
In article <eptsitoqn9gqndp9d359nmtqmqmnpu1b1b@4ax.com>, Jon Fleming
<jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
>Sunlight flows from the Sun to the Earth.  This is the same as entropy
>flowing from the Earth to the Sun.  Sunlight provides a direct
>decrease in entropy.

Er, actually no it doesn't (not a significant amount anyway); entropy
flows from the Sun to the Earth, and (in even larger quantity) from the
Earth to deep space.  Sunlight does allow nonspontaneous processes to
occur on Earth, drives Earth away from equilibrium, and other such
things, but it does not (directly) contribute to an entropy decrease on
Earth.

Really quick oversimplified summary: heat flows carry entropy with
them.  If a quantity Q of heat flows at (absolute) temperature T, it
carries entropy S=Q/T.  Heat flows from the Sun to the Earth at a
temperature of 6,000 Kelvin; about the same amount of heat flows from
the Earth to deep space at around 290 Kelvin.  Do the math.

...Well, actually, don't do that math, because what I just said isn't
entirely accurate.  The "heat flows" involved aren't happening under
sufficiently near-equilibrium conditions to have a well-defined
temperature in the right sense for the equation I gave to apply.  The
radiation from the Sun is pretty close to a 6,000K blackbody spectrum,
and blackbody radiation carries entropy S=4E/3T, so you can get a good
idea of the entropy carried by sunlight from that.  The entropy carried
by radiation leaving Earth is much harder to analyse: there's some
reflected sunlight (that no longer matches a blackbody spectrum), and a
lot of thermal emission following a wide assortment of non-blackbody
spectra.  But I think I can get a pretty safe lower bound on it...

So, let's take a stab at doing the (right) math.  The solar constant at
Earth's orbit is 135.30 mW/cm^2 = 1353 W/m^2 (all data is from the _CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th edition; this value is from
page F-200).  Earth's cross section is 1.27e14 m^2 (Pi*R^2, where R =
6371 km; page F-175).  Earth's total insolation is then solar constant
* cross seaction = 1.73e17 Watts.  At 6000K, using S=4E/3T, that comes
to 3.83e13 W/K (or if you prefer, 3.83e13 J/K per second) of entropy
received by Earth from the Sun.

As for the outgoing entropy... since I'm going for a l...

Evidence zoe_althrop 6/27/01 8:25 AM
On 18 Jun 2001 18:30:12 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

snip>


>Whatever low-level systems have been formed in the lab have been
>for,ed by mixing basic chemicals and (sometimes) applying energy in a
>form known to be available on the early Earth, such as sunlight or
>lightning.

I find it interesting that the determination for what was available on
the early earth depends on the worldview, not on scientific evidence.


A worldview that bases its history on a prerequisite of no free
oxygen, will decide that oxygen was KNOWN to be not available on early
earth.  And based on this premise, every reason is marshalled as to
why just only so much oxygen was present and got tied up in oxygen
sinks, with none left over.  And the reason why we know that none was
left over is because, see, we exist today, so that must mean that we
MUST have beaten the oxygen hurdle somehow.  

imo, the premise is allowed to govern the facts rather than the facts
govern the premise.  I would think that if the facts say that oxygen
is an integral part of our natural world, that this fact should be
considered as reason to reject a theory that says that life evolved
through phases that normally would not evolve due to the presence of
oxygen.  But no, instead, the premise is propped up by arguments that
serve to eliminate oxygen from the early picture, just so the theory
can stand.  

Highly unsatisfactory, imo.

>So nonspontaneous intervention, so conversion systems
>other than the basic chemicals themselves.
>

I don't know what you mean by this dangler.

snip>


>>
>>How do you state mathematically:  Decrease in entropy in a system is
>>equal to available energy divided by temperature, where the overall
>>entropy in the surroundings is equal to zero or higher, but the
>>entropy within the system is lower?
>
>I posted the equation in the message to which you replied:
>
>dS/dt + sigma((dm/dt)*Sm) = sigma(Q/T) + Sg
>
>where dS/dt is the change of entropy inside the system with time,
>dm/dt is mass flow across the system boundary, Sm is the entropy
>associated with the mass flow, Q is heat, T is the temperature at
>which the flow occurs across the boundary, and Sg is the entropy
>generated inside the system.

if that says what I said in English, then, okay, you have your math.

>>
>>Without the kind of intervention that sets up a system that decreases
>>entropy within it, it seems to me that 2LoT, if left to itself, will
>>continue on a path of increasing entropy only.  The test of this would
>>be to remove the systems that serve to reduce entropy and see if
>>entropy decreases without them.
>
>Since there are no systems to remove (in the case of formation of
>biological precursors on the early Earth), this test is meaningless.
>

I meant, remove (theoretically) the systems we know of today, and
determine if (theoretically) entropy would continue to decrease
without these systems being in place.  Indeed, would sunlight be the
means of forming these systems?

I bet you can express this mathematically, too, using S=klog(N) as the
application.

snip>


>>>Evidence would be:
>>>
>>>1.  A clear and unambiguous statement of exactly what constitutes the
>>>system.
>>>
>>
>>a system is any unit of inter-related parts, or inter-related units of
>&