Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10987Re: More "thermodynamics" pseudoscience from Don DeLong

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    Jul 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Rick Hartzog has already well addressed your most recent post about
      thermodynamics, and I have very little to add in regard to the
      specific points concerning the actual science. However, I do have
      some other points to add.

      But first I'm going to reiterate what you FAILED to address.

      > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #10950):
      >> --- In ContendingFTF, Don DeLong wrote (post #7360):
      >>> Daniel,
      >>> Notice again that he appeals to only that which can be
      >>> seen (experienced).
      >> What is correct is that I appeal to EVIDENCE. That's
      >> right, I expect people to back up their claims with
      >> EVIDENCE. So here we're noting - again - that Don DeLong
      >> jumps in right behind Daniel Denham to follow in the
      >> footsteps of their "We don't need no stinkin' evidence"
      >> approach. Of course, I've already pointed out numerous
      >> times that the fundamental problem with the claims these
      >> guys make is that they can't back them up with evidence,
      >> so I do have to thank Don for agreeing with me.

      Don, you have argued for ignoring the evidence. Why would you do such
      a thing?

      >>> Here again he
      >>> appeals to science (though he has left off using that
      >>> word, I wonder why?),
      >> This statement is simply false. I have used the words
      >> "science" and "scientific" repeatedly.

      Don, why did you fail to openly acknowledge the erroneous nature of
      your false statement about me? Do you think it's okay to lie about
      me? I suspect that you do think it's perfectly okay to lie about me,
      because, just as one example, Daniel Denham has been spewing out
      constant lies and you have not said one single word to oppose his
      deceitfulness. This demonstrates something to people about your
      character. Or lack of it.

      >>> so I ask,
      >>> are the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics "science"? Of
      >>> course they are and these boys know it. However, they
      >>> run from it at every opportunity. Why is that?
      >> They do?
      >> No, of course they don't. Indeed, Don is merely
      >> REPEATING a false argument that he made a few weeks ago,
      >> here we see Don just lying to everyone.

      Don, why did you fail to openly acknowledge the erroneous nature of
      your false statements?

      Why do you think it's okay to spout lies left and right?

      No one has run from discussing the second law of thermodynamics. DON,
      YOU DECEITFUL MAN, IT IS *YOU* WHO BOOTED ME OFF the discussion list
      in the middle of discussion (and thermodynamics had not even been
      brought up yet) and then later on IT IS *YOU* WHO BOOTED RICK OFF the
      discussion list in the middle of discussion. Rick WAS DISCUSSING
      points about thermodynamics, along with discussing various other
      topics, yet here you sit ignoring the context of what YOU did and
      then lying to people. That really takes a lot of gall, you know.

      Additionally, it is YOU guys who have deliberately run away from
      discussing various issues about science, EVEN SEVERAL ISSUES THAT YOU

      Moon recession. Short period comets.

      Among many others.

      >> I also suggest that Don (and anyone else) take a look at these:
      >> An Introduction to Entropy and Evolution: The Second Law
      >> of Thermodynamics in Science and in Young-Earth
      >> Creationism
      >> by Craig Rusbult
      >> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.htm
      >> The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the
      >> Christian Faith
      >> by Allan H. Harvey
      >> http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
      >> Entropy, God and Evolution
      >> by Doug Craigen
      >> http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php
      >> The second law of thermodynamics and evolution
      >> by Frank L. Lambert
      >> http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
      >> Thermodynamics for Two, Please
      >> by R. J. Riggins
      >> http://members.aol.com/darrwin/thermo.htm
      >> Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CF001
      >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
      >> Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CF001.1
      >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
      >> Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CF001.2
      >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
      >> Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CF001.3
      >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html

      Don, you completely ignored these.

      Yes, I knew you would.

      Virtually dead of thirst in your self-imposed banishment to the
      desert of ignorance. We lead you to the water, even try to get your
      heads down in it where you brain might even soak up just a little
      bit, but your obstinacy causes your body to go into seizures and you
      fall down and bury your head right in the sand.

      It's absolutely incredible to behold.

      But this is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

      You seem to think that by ignoring me you can just magically make
      your bizarre young earth creationist behavior go away, which is
      irrational in itself because even if I'm not saying it you're showing
      it. You ignore it, Don, and then you do it all over again in your
      very next post. Here is what I wrote before:

      >> Of course, we know Don will not address any of these
      >> problems that have been pointed out, because (1) his
      >> standard operating procedure - so very typical of young
      >> earth creationists - is to ignore all problems and
      >> pretend they don't exist, and then pop up days or weeks
      >> or months later AND PROMOTE THE SAME ERRORS ALL OVER
      >> AGAIN (this is The Young Earth Creationist Way), and (2)
      >> he's actually incapable of dealing with the discussion
      >> in the first place because he's clueless about the
      >> actual science in the first place, since all he's doing
      >> is parroting young earth creationist pseudoscience
      >> rhetoric.
      >> So let's get this straight, Don accuses Robert, Rick,
      >> and I of not having a brain, but it is Don himself who
      >> (1) argues that he doesn't even need to back up anything
      >> with any actual evidence, (2) apparently can't even read
      >> English, since I use the words "science" and
      >> "scientific" all the time, yet here he is saying I don't
      >> use those words, and (3) deliberately ignores NUMEROUS
      >> posts made to him pointing out errors on his claims
      >> about thermodynamics principles and then lies to
      >> everyone that none of these problems were ever pointed
      >> out.
      >> These things demonstrate who's really lacking a brain.

      In your comments below you talk about trying to persuade me to change
      my mind over some mythical danger. Geeze, Don, that's real impressive
      argumentation, you can't come up with a rational argument based on
      accurate information, let alone getting to substantiating an argument
      with relevant scientific facts, so you pretend based on some
      religious myth that if I don't buy into YOUR gobbledygook nonsense
      I'm going to fry me in some eternal furnace. So when did you get
      crowned God? And where does the Bible teach the concepts and
      mathematics of the first and second laws of thermodynamics and how
      this supposedly prohibits biological evolution? Is that in the book
      of Hezekia somewhere? What chapters are those, and when are you going
      to get around to providing the references?

      This is the utterly bizarrely irrational kind of rhetoric we're
      getting from you, and here you sit expecting anyone to take you

      Your sentiment certainly doesn't go the other way. Not only do I not
      try in the least to persuade you to change your mind, I EXPECT you to
      not do so. I know what young earth creationists are like. I know the
      attitude. With your comments all the time pretending your silly
      pseudoscience nonsense claims are nothing less than the very words of
      God Himself. Obtinate refusal to ever acknowledge any error that you
      make or that is made by your fellow young earth creationists (which,
      by the way, is completely the opposite of how scientists operate,
      which is how scientists demonstrate that the plane their on is so
      much higher than yours that you're at least six feet under the
      ground). When you talk about morality - no, no, when you even MENTION
      the word morality - I laugh and laugh at your blatant hypocrisy.
      Spouting pseudoscience arguments that have been known to be false for
      DECADES. (Geeze, sometimes I catch you guys even spouting arguments
      that have been known to be wrong for over a hundred years! Such as
      the old discredited argument by Kelvin about the internal heat of the
      Earth indicating that the Earth couldn't be any older approximately
      100 million years, or - get this - the argument that the second law
      of thermodynamics prohibits evolution! Yes, that one's a really OLDY
      moldy argument.)

      Don, if you were to drop the young earth creationist attitude and
      actually deal with discussion rationally and honestly acknowledge
      relevant scientific facts and deal with them in a rational way I
      would be completely and utterly flabbergasted, amazed, stunned, and
      quite irritated about losing my huge mountain of quatloos I have
      acquired from gambling on my almost flawless predictions about just
      how crazy you guys are going to act.

      I'm not trying to persuade you, because I need you for the show,
      which is to just keep right on demonstrating by the words that you
      write when you discuss science just exactly how dismal the young
      earth creationist comprehension of science really is.


      --- Don DeLong wrote (July 2, 2007):
      > Todd,
      > If I had not seen evidence upon evidence, I would think
      > it impossible for a person to so blind themself to reality.

      This is exactly why we know not only that when it comes to science
      young earth creationists don't know what they're talking, which they
      prove by demonstration virtually every time that actually discuss
      science, but in their demonstration of their conceptual failures
      about science they also demonstrate that they are explicitly
      motivated to attack science by adherence to RELIGIOUS dogma, not
      science. Young earth creationists are blind to reality because they
      have blinded themselves to reality, by their very own deliberate

      > I know that
      > I have made a lot of tongue-in-cheek statements to you
      > numb-skulls in the past,

      We have been observing just how numb the skulls of yourself and
      Daniel Denham are.

      > but seriously, open
      > your eyes.

      I typically don't pay a whole lot of attention to total hypocrites.

      Don, seriously, you need to open your eyes.

      > Just for a moment,
      > look, don't try to read anything into the facts. Just
      > look at the facts.

      I have been looking at the facts. I've also been looking at the
      logic. The problem is that we have not been able to get you to even
      deal with basic logic, let alone deal with the scientific facts.

      > Why do I say that you are blind? Because you have on many
      > occasions (such as your last e-mail) claimed that
      > something was answered just because either you or one of
      > your side-kicks responded.

      That is not correct. I claimed it was answered because it was

      Additionally, it was *you* who was pretending not only that your
      comments were not answered but that they were not even addressed.

      You young earth creationists apparently don't even comprehend how
      rational discussion is conducted. Statements are written,
      claims/points (facts and arguments) are made, and then these may be
      responded to with criticisms that discuss why the statements that are
      made either (1) don't make sense (fallacious or illogical; one of the
      most basis ones being that "that doesn't follow" [non sequitur], in
      which case the proponent of the claim/argument must produce an actual
      argument [rational explanation]), or (2) can't be substantiated with
      the facts. What we observe about you, and Daniel, and Keith, and so
      on, is that you seem inordinately incapable of dealing with
      substantive criticism of your statements. We waste an awful lot of
      time just trying to get you guys to even acknowledge the fact that
      criticisms of your statements have been made, because you will go on
      for days just deceitfully pretending that no one has even pointed out
      any problems.

      > A response does not a refutation make.

      I never said that a response is necessarily a good refutation. I
      pointed out the responses *because* they are refutations of your
      comments. In other words, here we see you attempting to misrepresent
      my comments.

      Of course, in the immediate case, I'm also simply getting you to stop
      lying to people that no one has even responded to you. If you were
      genuinely serious about engaging in honest rational discussion, then
      you would honestly acknowledge that criticisms of your arguments have
      been stated, so then rather then deliberately ignoring these
      criticisms you would attempt to deal with them either by discussing
      why you think the criticisms are incorrect or by acknowledging
      legitimate problems/errors and then modifying/correcting your
      arguments accordingly. This is STANDARD to rational discussion, yet
      to you young earth creationists it seems to be completely FOREIGN to
      how you carry out discussion.

      > Most of posts that you linked were from when Rick
      > originally brought up the subject of Thermodynamics on
      > the Christian Evidences list, and responses to that post
      > and subsequent responses that included the original post
      > material.

      I'm glad that you are now acknowledging the fact that there actually
      exists a context for this topic of discussion, that this discussion
      was taking place, that Rick Hartzog not only brought up this
      particular topic in the first place, that he was discussing the
      subject. What you fail to mention is that Rick pointed out how when
      it comes to science, in this case in regard to the second law of
      thermodynamics, young earth creationists don't know what they're
      talking about, and additionally their position is incoherent.

      While you may certainly wish to discuss additional aspects of that
      particular topic, merely pretending that Rick didn't discuss it just
      isn't going to fly.

      In regard to the young earth creationist claim that evolution is
      somehow contrary to the second law of thermodynamics... well, that's
      getting into following discussion...

      > Finally we get to
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10671
      > the supposed refutation. But is it? Your rose colored
      > glasses would have you to believe that it in fact is.

      Don, you young earth creationists always make me laugh and laugh and
      laugh when you use your silly rhetoric accusing *me* of having rose-
      colored glasses. In regard to science, all of us know who wears rose-
      colored glasses - indeed, young earth creationists have had their
      rose-colored glasses sewed into the skin around their eyes.

      > Again, remember that
      > a response does not a refutation make.

      Of course, a refutation is a response, as well. Which you seem to
      want to forget.

      Can you say, "moon dust" and "moon recession" and "short period

      Yes, I'm still laughing about those, too!

      > I will not call for Rick's and your (because you have
      > included such in an e-mail you sent thereby placing your
      > stamp of approval on such) retraction of the "fallacy of
      > equivocation" statement because I know that it will not
      > come.

      The reason it will not come is because of the fact that you have
      indeed equivocated between different things - AND YOU HAVE ADMITTED


      > Yes, biological evolution and biogenesis ARE two
      > different things.

      Yes, that's right. That's the point. I'm glad that you have finally
      chosen to acknowledge this.

      > BUT, neither could
      > take place given evolution, that is my point exactly.

      I know Rick already pointed this out, but I can't help belabor the
      error - your statement makes no sense: You say that biological
      evolution could not take place given evolution.

      Were you trying to stun me with this "logic"?

      And you dared to accuse me of having a numb skull.

      Let's just say, I'm not impressed.

      Here's another point I've made - that you have also completely

      Biological evolution could not take place without gravity.

      Biological evolution could not take place without the sun.

      Biological evolution could not take place without organic chemistry

      So what is your argument, exactly?

      You need to actually make a logical argument, you need to actually
      provide a reasoned explanation of what you claim. You do know this,
      don't you?

      > Todd, where did it (matter) come from?

      That's a great question. If you were serious about attacking that
      question then you should probably consider taking up research in
      particle physics, or perhaps cosmological astrophysics.

      > The 1st Law
      > says that it did not/could not come from naturalistic
      > means, so, where did it come from?

      That's pure rubbish. The first law of thermodynamics says nothing of
      the sort. Here you're just making stuff up.

      Oh, yeah, that's right, when it comes to the rhetoric you use about
      science we have observed that you make up stuff all the time.

      > Did matter come
      > from nothing?

      I doubt it.

      > The 1st Law says NO! In fact it could not.

      In fact, the first law says that matter and energy must be conserved.

      Also, in fact, we observe that matter comes from nothing in the
      Universe all the time, as a background quantum mechanics effect.
      Particles and their anti-particles pop into existence from nothing,
      and then in a VERY short period of time annihilate each other. The
      only reason I mention this is to point out that you have not
      correctly represented what the first law says.

      > Yes, I know that this is a slight changing of the
      > subject, but since you guys have not answered the fact
      > that something can not come from nothing.

      Something can't come from nothing.


      Could you PLEASE EXPLAIN why I am supposed to "have an answer" for
      that? Why do you assume I'm supposed to object to it?

      > Oh, I must be mistaken. I did not know that the 2nd Law
      > of Thermodynamics had been disproved. What do you mean
      > that it hasn't? Didn't you just read Rick's "oak tree"
      > example? It must have been disproved.

      Of course, you're just making a straw man argument. The truth of the
      matter is that Rick NEVER stated or implied anything of the sort, the
      idea that the second law had been disproved.

      Again do we observe you making up pure rubbish.

      > The 2nd Law still says that matter can not/will not
      > evolve it can only devolve. That is our point exactly.

      Indeed, that is EXACTLY why your point is wrong, because the second
      law does NOT say that.

      Again do we observe you making up pure rubbish.

      > By the way, you might want to tell Rick that he should
      > not write any more posts/e-mails because he puts his
      > foot in his mouth and does your cause harm every time
      > that he tries. Though, I do give him an A for effort.

      Don, you have me laughing - again - at the sheer irony of your
      rhetoric. Indeed, I DO want you to please continue to write more
      posts pretending you know anything at all about science, because I
      enjoy young earth creationists writing about science, because it is
      by your own words that you write that you guys demosntrate for
      everyone how little you know about science and how much you think you
      know about science that is completely bogus, and in addition to the
      dismal ignorance about the science that you preach against and the
      pseudoscience nonsense that you promote you demonstrate your utterly
      hubristic arrogance against that which you know little to nothing,
      because you've got your closed-minded stick in the mud of your false
      religious dogma and it's your dogma against everything cuz you don't
      need no stinkin' evidence, you know your dogma's right no matter what.

      Can you say, "moon dust" and "moon recession" and "short period

      > The fact that the "oak tree" drops its acorn and it
      > does not sprout a watermelon is exactly what we are
      > talking about. Of course an acorn is going to produce an
      > oak tree.

      The fact that oak trees produce acorns, some of which produce new oak
      trees is a perfect example of the fact that reproduction and growth
      processes taking place in the real world are not contrary to the
      second law of thermodynamics. The fact that entropy increases overall
      in a system does not in any way change the fact that entropy can and
      does decrease in subsets of the system. This can also be stated in
      reverse. The fact that entropy can and does decrease subsets of some
      system does not change the fact that there is still an overall
      increase in entropy. And the fact that you apparently don't even seem
      to comprehend this point only serves to further demonstrate the
      numbness of that skull of yours.

      The point is that the only way you can make such a claim as that the
      second law prohibits biological evolution is by completely ignoring
      how the second law really applies in the real world.

      > Just open your eyes. That is all that I am asking.

      Not only do I open my eyes to the pseudoscience rubbish produced by
      young earth creationists such as you, but I explain why it's rubbish
      because I also have my eyes open to real science. You on the other
      hand are unable to open your eyes to science because you have those
      religious blinder lenses sewed onto the skin around your eyes.

      In fact, it is YOU, Don, who needs to open his eyes. You need to open
      your eyes to geological science. You need to open your eyes to
      astronomical science. You need to deal with the fact that not only is
      it possible for religious doctrines to be false, but in this
      particular case it is a religious doctrine that you happen to believe
      in, and it is a religious doctrine that has been proved
      scientifically to be a false idea about the world. The Universe has
      been in existence far, far longer than just 6,000 years. The Earth
      has been in existence far, far longer than just 6,000 years.

      Thus, all this rhetoric you're using from the cornucopia of young
      earth creationist pseudoscience has been produced by and is coming
      from an idea that WE ALREADY KNOW IS COMPLETELY WRONG. A position
      that is based on denying the facts of reality is a worthless position.

      > I really wish that you could read into my e-mails
      > (at least some of them) the pleading that I am doing
      > with you guys. I truly want you to see the truth. You
      > guys have been seriously deceived and will not be
      > open minded enough to see that there is evidence that
      > you have not even begun to consider.
      > Pleading,
      > Don DeLong

      Deceived by what?

      Don, there's no need to play rhetorical games here. All of us already
      know that young earth creationism is based on RELIGIOUS BELIEF, and a
      particular religious belief at that, that is certainly not shared by
      all Christians (people who believe in the Bible God and who also
      believe in the traditional religious doctrines about Jesus). Indeed,
      the doctrine of young earth creationism is shared by by a minority of
      such Christians. All of us already also know that in the world of
      professional geology and professional astronomy, young earth
      creationism is NONEXISTENT as part of professional science research.

      You can't play word games with us. We know the truth of the matter.
      Using mere words to try to pretend otherwise only shows how much it
      is YOU who is willing to bury your head in the sand and deny reality.

      And when you tell me that I need to be open-minded to see
      the "evidence that you have not even begun to consider," I just have
      to laugh and laugh some more. It is virtually impossible to be more
      closed-minded than young earth creationists. It is YOU and your YEC
      colleagues who have been diligently running away from discussing the
      scientific facts about some of the claims you've made.

      Can you say, "moon dust" and "moon recession" and "short period

      We've been asking and asking and asking and asking you guys to deal
      with the science, and virtually all you've been doing is either
      spouting tons of purely irrelevant ad hominem remarks or making
      utterly circular arguments that such and such is contrary to your
      religious dogma. Whether something is contrary to your religious
      dogma is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant are the scientific facts. Don,
      don't just sit here and PRETEND that "there is evidence that you have
      not even begun to consider." PRODUCE IT. We've been asking you and
      asking you to produce it and discuss the science. But all you guys do
      is run away from the science. This is the problem. Your empty
      rhetoric here pretending otherwise is nothing more than a joke. Then
      you want us to believe you really will discuss science, and then you
      produce this crazy nonsense that proves, for example, that you don't
      even know the second law of thermodynamics is.

      How can you possible discuss the subject intelligibly when you don't
      even know what the concept is that you're discussion? Did you
      seriously think that you were going to really learn something about
      science from a bunch of religious propagandists whose very PURPOSE is
      to distort and misrepresent science because science is contrary to
      their RELIGIOUS dogma? Hello? You cannot, for example, deliberately
      ignore genuinely studying about any genuine geology, and then expect
      to think anything you have to say on the subject is of any relevance
      whatsoever. This "We don't need no stinkin' evidence" attitude you
      young earth creationists have is nothing but a bunch of garbage, and
      you know it. Deliberately ignoring the genuine science of geology,
      and then pretending that anything you have to say is relevant to
      discussing the subject, is blatant dishonesty, and you know it.

      It is YOU who is deliberately ignoring astronomical science and
      geological science. It is YOU who deliberately ignores the science
      by, for example using bizarre rhetoric pretending that geology and
      astronomy are just an evolutionist conspiracy, and also spouting
      blatantly false remarks like "evolution isn't science, it's just
      religion" even while literally hundreds of research articles relevant
      to evolution are published each and every year in the professional
      science literature. It is with your own rhetoric that you show
      everyone how you are so far out in left field that you're not even on
      the planet.

      I realize I'm very "rough and tumble," Don, because I am deliberately
      giving you everything you guys who call yourselves Christians throw
      at me, because it's my job to turn it around and let you see what you
      look like in your mirror.

      No, a facelift's not gonna help you in the least.

      At this point I have almost zero doubt that you're even capable of
      even BEGINNING to seriously discuss the second law of thermodynamics.
      Golly, you don't even know what it is.

      - Todd Greene
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic