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

Re: More "thermodynamics" pseudoscience from Don DeLong - by Don

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    I have no idea why I m getting this ONLY by personal email. (Maybe he meant to get to it and got interrupted?) It is a direct response to the public discussion
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I have no idea why I'm getting this ONLY by personal email. (Maybe he
      meant to get to it and got interrupted?) It is a direct response to
      the public discussion that is going on right now, in this case on the
      particular topic of the young earth creationist pseudoscientific
      misuse of thermodynamics. Therefore, I'm posting it to the group. I
      have no problem with Don emailing this to (so I definitely know he
      has responded in some way, in case I don't happen to catch it in the
      ContendingFTF group (and these guys are so closed-minded they cannot
      tolerate even carrying on a discussion in the same discussion group -
      which is childishly silly but that's just the way these guys are). I
      can't take the time to address Don's comments right now, so I'll get
      to it later. Of course, anyone else can respond to him as well.

      - Todd

      ================================================================

      --- 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. I know that I have made
      a lot of tongue-in-cheek statements to you numb-skulls in the past,
      but seriously, open your eyes. Just for a moment, look, don't try to
      read anything into the facts. Just look at the 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. A response
      does not a refutation make.

      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.

      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. Again, remember that a response
      does not a refutation make. So, let's see what Rick had to say
      germane to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

      > 3) 1st Law of Thermodynamics -- "argument from
      > ignorance", better known as "god-of-the-gaps"; i.e., if
      > we don't have a scientific explanation for it, God musta
      > did it!
      >
      > DeLong also continues on with his fallacy of equivocation
      > -- biological evolution and biogenesis are two different
      > things. Regardless of how or when Life began, you can
      > observe the processes of biological evolution taking
      > place in existing populations of organisms *right now*.

      Don here - 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.

      Yes, biological evolution and biogenesis ARE two [totally] different
      things. BUT, neither could take place given evolution, that is my
      point exactly. Rick has not "answered", "refuted" or any such like
      thing, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. He responded, nothing more,
      nothing else, just responded.

      Todd, where did it (matter) come from? The 1st Law says that it did
      not/could not come from naturalistic means, so, where did it come
      from? Did matter come from nothing? The 1st Law says NO! In fact it
      could not. 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.

      By the way, I LOVE how you attempt to side-step that issue by using,
      yes using, one of your cohorts to imply that it came from God (non-
      natural means), yet you do not believe in God. Interesting. Where did
      it come from?

      > 4) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- argument from DeLong's
      > OWN ignorance; the 2nd Law DOES NOT preclude biological
      > evolution. Life on Earth is not a "closed" system, it is
      > constantly gaining energy from the Sun and converting
      > that energy, through photosynthesis, into a form usable
      > by Life. A very simple example is an oak tree: from a
      > single acorn, with the addition of sunlight, comes a
      > large, complex structure that produces many more acorns,
      > which become separate, sunlight-converting, complex
      > structures on their own, which become a forest...

      Don here - 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.

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

      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.

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

      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


      --- 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.
      >
      >> I have asked
      >> these guys before and will ask again. Can anyone prove
      >> that Todd Greene, Robert Baty or Rick Hartzog have a
      >> brain without seeing (experiencing) it? For it is
      >> certain, by comments seen below, that there is no
      >> implication of a brain (or at least one the works).
      >
      > Is this an argument?
      >
      > Of course not.
      >
      > Which is exactly what makes Don's silly ad hominem real
      > ironic.
      >
      >> 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.
      >
      >> 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, THE ERRORS
      > OF WHICH WERE EXCPLICITLY POINTED OUT BY BOTH RICK
      > HARTZOG IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE MADE THE ARGUMENT. So here
      > we see Don just lying to everyone.
      >
      >> It is precisely because the 1st and 2nd Laws of
      >> Thermodynamics DESTROY the theory known as "evolution".
      >
      > Well, no, they don't. Here again we observe Don making
      > ASSERTIONS and then pretending that this is a rational
      > argument. If Don wishes to proceed with attempting to
      > defend his argument against the errors that WERE ALREADY
      > POINTED OUT, then that is what he should do instead of
      > just lying that no problems were pointed out. Here are
      > the direct links (note that some of these are copied from
      > the "christianevidences" group, where they were made
      > originally):
      >
      > "Christian" evidences?: Rick's reply to Daniel Denham's #132
      > by Rick Hartzog (May 15, 2007)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/9732
      >
      > "Christian" evidences?: Rick's reply to Daniel Denham's #193
      > by Rick Hartzog (May 16, 2007)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/9753
      >
      > "Christian" evidences?: Rick's reply to Don DeLong's #267
      > by Rick Hartzog (June 6, 2007)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10191
      >
      > Evidence, all right, but evidence of what?
      > by Rick Hartzog (June 23, 2007)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10671
      >
      > 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
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > - Todd Greene
    • rlbaty50
      ... He s got to be kidding! As I recall, it was Don DeLong who put up C.D. Healy as his surrogate to falsely accuse my Goliath of GRAS as being plagued with
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Don signed that e-mail:

        > Pleading,
        > Don DeLong

        He's got to be kidding!

        As I recall, it was Don DeLong who put up C.D. Healy as his surrogate
        to falsely accuse my "Goliath of GRAS" as being plagued with
        the "equivocation fallacy".

        Then Don DeLong promptly ran off from that important public discussion
        and, apparently, gave up his champion C.D. Healy most secretly.

        Don DeLong, I am the one "pleading" and have been "pleading" for you
        and yours to quit yourselves like the men you think you are and "come
        out" so that we might "reason TOGETHER" regarding these important
        public issues.

        Now it clearly appears that you have contributed to deceiving John
        West on these matters.

        It was also Don DeLong, as I clearly seem to recall, that was
        admitting that he and his fellows could "NOT see through the rungs of
        a ladder". I have tried to convince them otherwise, but Don and his
        fellows quickly ran off and hid from that discussion as well.

        Then there was the case of Daniel Denham's "genuine equivocation
        fallacy" which they all quickly abandoned, though I "pleaded" for them
        to "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER" regarding that.

        Now they are all running from David P. Brown's falsification argument
        regarding God.

        Don, I'm the one "pleading" for you to quit yourself like a man
        and "come out".

        You are not "pleading", Don.

        Don DeLong, you and yours are running!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • rlbaty50
        ... Here s my comments and proposal for completing the demonstration that Don DeLong is merely setting himself up to again run off and hide: David P. Brown has
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Todd, you wrote:

          > I can't take the time to address
          > Don's comments right now, so I'll
          > get to it later. Of course, anyone
          > else can respond to him as well.

          Here's my comments and proposal for completing the demonstration that
          Don DeLong is merely setting himself up to again run off and hide:

          David P. Brown has already noticed how folks like Don DeLong are
          unable to formulate an argument and/or respond to one when it
          confronts them.

          If Don DeLong really believes he's onto something with his bantering
          about thermodynamics and the substance of the issues we've
          been "pleading" with him and his to deal with, then I would encourage
          him to make the public committment here and now to "come out", "stand
          his ground" and "reason TOGETHER" with at least one of us regarding
          it.

          Todd, you're elected on this side of the issue! :o)

          If Don DeLong will quit himself like the man he claims to be
          and "come out" committed to dealing with his thermodynamics claim as
          it relates to the substance of the issues we've attempted to deal
          with, then the negotiations should proceed to formalize a discussion,
          in writing, and for the record.

          Don DeLong is welcome to present for consideration his proposition(s)
          for discussion.

          Todd, you would then be expected to accept the proposals or make
          counterproposals.

          The discussions should continue until one or more propositions was
          agreed upon.

          After that, the negotiations would involve the logistical details of
          the formal, in writing, for the record discussion.

          Hey, Don DeLong could even substitute his own surrogate for the
          discussion.

          Will Don DeLong quit himself like the man he claims to be instead of
          the "girlie-man" described by Donald Canny?

          My guess is we'll see the "girlie-man" run!

          Which is it, Don DeLong?

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • w_w_c_l
          ... And let s see what DeLong has to say that is germane to anything I said. ... I think DeLong has his own fallacy of equivocation charge to be retracting!
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote (in part):
            >
            > I have no idea why I'm getting this ONLY by
            > personal email...
            >
            > ...can't take the time to address Don's comments
            > right now, so I'll get to it later. Of course,
            > anyone else can respond to him as well.
            >
            > - Todd

            ================================================================

            --- 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.
            > I know that I have made a lot of tongue-in-cheek statements
            > to you numb-skulls in the past, but seriously, open your
            > eyes. Just for a moment, look, don't try to read anything
            > into the facts. Just look at the 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. A response does not a refutation make.
            >
            > 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.
            >
            > 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. Again,
            > remember that a response does not a refutation make. So, let's
            > see what Rick had to say germane to the 1st and 2nd Laws of
            > Thermodynamics.

            And let's see what DeLong has to say that is germane to
            anything I said.

            I (Rick) wrote:

            >> 3) 1st Law of Thermodynamics -- "argument from
            >> ignorance", better known as "god-of-the-gaps"; i.e., if
            >> we don't have a scientific explanation for it, God musta
            >> did it!
            >>
            >> DeLong also continues on with his fallacy of equivocation
            >> -- biological evolution and biogenesis are two different
            >> things. Regardless of how or when Life began, you can
            >> observe the processes of biological evolution taking
            >> place in existing populations of organisms *right now*.

            DeLong replies:

            > Don here - 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.

            I think DeLong has his own "fallacy of equivocation" charge
            to be retracting! Something having to do with Robert's
            "Goliath of GRAS", was it not? Yes! It was!

            And unlike DeLong, I am prepared to back up my charge,
            just below.


            > Yes, biological evolution and biogenesis ARE two
            > [totally] different things. BUT, neither could take
            > place given evolution, that is my point exactly.

            Huh??? Given "evolution", evolution can not take place?
            That doesn't even make any sense. First, DeLong is
            misusing the Law of Biogenesis -- biological life only
            comes from biological life (insofar as we have ever
            observed) -- to say that God must have created life.
            But God is not a biological organism. So even with
            God creating biological Life, that is just as much a
            contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis as biological
            life spontaneously arising from non-living matter
            (which is "abiogenesis"). So the beginning of biological
            life from either paradigm is the same -- and hence one
            "fallacy of equivocation": the "life" meant by the Law
            of Biogenesis does not apply to the "Life" which is God.

            And here is another of DeLong's "equivocation fallacies":
            he's obviously calling something "evolution" that is not
            biological evolution. He is stuck in his *false dichotomy*
            of "Creation" (which he deems to be the God of the Bible)
            versus "Evolution" (which he deems to be atheism), which
            allows him to equate anything having to do with biological
            evolution with atheism, which is not only an equivocation
            of terms but is logically false anyway.

            In other words, all of science that tells us the Earth is
            more than a few thousand years old is considered to be
            "evolutionism", and evolutionism is considered to be
            "atheism". So when it gets right down to it, DeLong is
            guilty of *several* equivocation fallacies here, e.g.,
            "geology" = "evolutionism" = "atheism"; "astronomy" =
            "atheism", etc.


            > Rick has not "answered", "refuted" or any such like
            > thing, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. He responded,
            > nothing more, nothing else, just responded.

            And "apparently" DeLong doesn't know enough about
            thermodynamics to even understand the response.

            I wasn't trying to refute the 1st Law, I was pointing
            out that, as far as science is concerned, the 1st Law
            does not "prove" the existence of God, or even of a
            "Primal Cause". The 1st Law is applicable only to "closed"
            "Systems". We don't know that the Universe is a "closed"
            System. And even if the Universe *is* a closed system,
            we don't have a finite volume for it, nor do we yet have
            an equation that quantifies the "Energy" for it. All we
            can do is draw imaginary boundaries around parts of it
            and quantify the Energy exchanges within those boundaries,
            and in so doing we have found that as the "volume" of the
            Universe is increasing (expansion), we need something
            called "dark energy" to make the equations balance out.


            > Todd, where did it (matter) come from? The 1st Law
            > says that it did not/could not come from naturalistic
            > means, so, where did it come from? Did matter come from
            > nothing? The 1st Law says NO! In fact it could not.

            Let's look at a simple definition of the 1st Law, from
            Wikipedia:

            "The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic
            system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy
            supplied to the system and the work done on the system."

            See that constraint -- a "closed system"? So just like
            your fallacy above with the Law of Biogenesis, you are
            positing "God" as the "Source" -- the "input" into a
            closed system.

            Matter is "frozen" Energy. Your question is more properly,
            "Where did the Energy come from?" And that is what science
            does not know. But science is not going to just say, "God
            did it," and let it go at that. Science is going to "look
            into the matter" (pun!) and see if they can't figure it out.

            And if science *does* figure it out, *poof* -- there goes
            your "god-of-the-gaps". Which is why the "god-of-the-gaps"
            is frowned upon by non-believers and believers alike; not
            only is it a fallacious argument but it confines the acts
            of God to areas where we so far lack scientific knowledge.


            > 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.

            Personally, I have no intention of trying to prove that
            "something" can come from "nothing". The question is,
            though, what is the nature of that "Something" from
            which "Everything" came? My own answer is that it
            comes from God, of course, for two reasons (1) I already
            know that God exists, and (2) the "God" answer allows
            me to bail out without "infinite regress", which is where
            the question leads, by simply endlessly asking, "But where
            did *that* come from?"..."But then, where did *that* come
            from?" etc.

            But for DeLong to get back to the point of infinite regress,
            he is first going to have to get back to the beginning of
            the Universe, which is about *two and half million times*
            farther back in Time than DeLong thinks it is.


            > By the way, I LOVE how you attempt to side-step that
            > issue by using, yes using, one of your cohorts to imply
            > that it came from God (non-natural means), yet you do not
            > believe in God. Interesting. Where did it come from?

            It could have come from another Universe; it could have
            come from an oscillation of this Universe; we just don't
            empirically *know*. (But I'll leave this part for Todd to
            deal with from his own perspective.)


            I had written:

            >> 4) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- argument from DeLong's
            >> OWN ignorance; the 2nd Law DOES NOT preclude biological
            >> evolution. Life on Earth is not a "closed" system, it is
            >> constantly gaining energy from the Sun and converting
            >> that energy, through photosynthesis, into a form usable
            >> by Life. A very simple example is an oak tree: from a
            >> single acorn, with the addition of sunlight, comes a
            >> large, complex structure that produces many more acorns,
            >> which become separate, sunlight-converting, complex
            >> structures on their own, which become a forest...


            DeLong replies:

            > Don here - Oh, I must be mistaken. I did not know
            > that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics had been disproved.

            It hasn't.


            > What do you mean that it hasn't? Didn't you just read
            > Rick's "oak tree" example? It must have been disproved.

            The "oak tree example" is an illustration of Energy (in
            the form of sunlight) entering a System (the oak tree).
            The 2nd Law applies to "closed" Systems. "Closed" (or
            "isolated") means that Energy is not entering the System
            from an outside source. The oak tree is not a closed
            system, just as life on Earth is not a closed system.

            It's a very simple illustration.


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

            Let's look at a simple definition of the 2nd Law, again
            from Wikipedia:

            "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system
            tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

            See that word "isolated"? That means the 2nd Law applies
            to "closed" Systems. Life on Earth is not a "closed"
            System. The "Life on Earth System" is constantly receiving
            Energy from an outside source -- the Sun. If you do not
            add energy in the form of sunlight to the acorn, the energy
            in the acorn degrades, rather than "evolving" into the
            vastly more organized "matter" of a mature oak tree.


            > 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.

            Ha ha ha.

            Another of your "tongue-in-cheek" remarks, DeLong?


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

            That doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with what
            you are claiming about thermodynamics. The way
            thermodynamics applies to this is that the Sunlight
            Energy is converted from a (simple) acorn to a (complex)
            oak tree, which makes thousands and thousands of more
            (simple) acorns which grow into (complex) oak trees
            which, growing together into a forest, further increases
            complexity. All from a single acorn with the energy
            input of Sunlight, which ultimately leads to the capture
            of more and more sunlight energy into an increasingly
            complex system.

            Which proves your objection to biological evolution on
            the grounds of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is completely
            unsupportable, and comes from a profound misunderstanding
            of both thermodynamics and the basic mechanisms of Life
            itself -- ALL (virtually) Life on Earth derives its
            energy from the Sun. (And it is estimated that only
            about 5% of the available energy from the Sun striking
            the Earth is photosynthesized and enters the food chain,
            so there is PLENTY of potential energy available to the
            Earth's "Life System".)


            > Of course an acorn is going to produce an oak tree.

            Not without massive inputs of Energy into the "Oak Tree
            System" it's not! The Energy in the acorn is sufficient
            to sprout the acorn and let it produce a few leaves.
            From then on, all additional Energy has to come *into*
            the "Oak Tree System" from an outside source, the
            Sun, through the process of photosynthesis. That's what
            photosynthesis does -- it captures Sunlight Energy and
            converts it into Oak Tree Food, so that the oak tree can
            grow.


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

            OK, let's open our eyes and look at things realistically
            just for a moment: Don DeLong has made an appeal to the
            Laws of Thermodynamics.

            Yet it is those very Laws of Thermodynamics that tell us,
            without a doubt, that the Universe did not, *and could not
            have*, suddenly come into existence some 6,000 years ago.
            (Or, if it did, then we are in the midst of a "fake
            Universe". Does DeLong think he is ready to defend the
            "apparent age" concept, where God created fake stars and
            fake fossils that never really existed?)

            What it all boils down to, Don DeLong, is that if you
            are going to going to use the laws of physics in this
            Universe as evidence for God, then you are going to have
            to use the laws of physics, *in this Universe, as they
            are and as it is*, otherwise your "proofs" will not
            hold up mathematically. There is no other way around it.

            And the laws of physics in this Universe tell us that
            the Universe has been here for around 15 billion years
            and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If the laws of
            physics were anything different than just what they are,
            our existence would not be possible -- so then you can
            argue from there into the "anthropic principle". But you
            can not use the anthropic principle if you are going to
            say the Universe is only a few thousand years old.


            > 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

            Such as?


            Rick Hartzog
            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


            READ THIS STUFF:

            Wikipedia's overview of thermodynamics (pay special
            attention to the section about "Systems"):
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

            Dark Energy:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

            Anthropic Principle:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

            Law of Biogenesis:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

            I'm also reincluding a few of the links Todd provided
            in his post #10950 -- apparently you (DeLong) didn't
            bother to read any of these either:

            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
          • w_w_c_l
            ... Sorry, Robert, but I already had my own reply almost finished when you posted this. Personally, I m tired of refuting their evidence all the time. I
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
              >
              > Todd, you wrote:
              >
              > > I can't take the time to address
              > > Don's comments right now, so I'll
              > > get to it later. Of course, anyone
              > > else can respond to him as well.
              >
              > Here's my comments and proposal...
              >
              > If Don DeLong really believes he's onto something
              > with his bantering about thermodynamics and the
              > substance of the issues we've been "pleading" with
              > him and his to deal with, then I would encourage
              > him to make the public committment here and now to
              > "come out", "stand his ground" and "reason TOGETHER"
              > with at least one of us regarding it.
              >
              > Todd, you're elected on this side of the issue! :o)

              Sorry, Robert, but I already had my own reply almost
              finished when you posted this.

              Personally, I'm tired of refuting "their" evidence
              all the time. I want to see them "deal with" some
              of "ours".

              That should help us more quickly see whether they
              are really interested in honest dialogue or whether
              they're just going to jeer at us from over there in
              "Dr. Fox's corner".


              Rick Hartzog
              Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
            • rlbaty50
              ... I think so too! In fact, that little issue is the key piece of evidence that convicts David P. Brown and his boys, especially Don DeLong, of being guilty
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Rick, you wrote, in part:

                > I think DeLong has his own
                > "fallacy of equivocation"
                > charge to be retracting!

                > Something having to do
                > with Robert's "Goliath of
                > GRAS", was it not?

                > Yes!

                > It was!

                I think so too!

                In fact, that little issue is the key piece of evidence that convicts
                David P. Brown and his boys, especially Don DeLong, of being guilty of
                what David P. Brown himself complained about.

                That is, that they are the ones who don't know how to make
                an "argument" and/or deal with one when it smacks them in the face.

                Furthermore, that history is the key piece of evidence that convicts
                David P. Brown and his boys, especially Don DeLong and Daniel Denham,
                of being the ones guilty of running off and hiding and of trying to
                change the subject continually as their failures mount up against them.

                Rick, you've now considered this, but it may be worth repeating.

                I propose that until such time as Don DeLong "come out" and commits
                himself to "reasoning TOGETHER" with someone here regarding his
                position on thermodynamics, there is no compelling reason to deal with
                him; he's just going to run off and hide again.

                He needs to "come out", "come out here", make his committment
                to "reason TOGETHER" formally, in writing, for the record and then
                negotiate in good faith for a proposition and the logistics for the
                discussion.

                I can't compel that course, but it sure seems to me to be preferred to
                trying to quibble about the details before there's even been any
                agreement on the context and relevance of any such discussion.

                I think my prophecy will again be fulfilled!

                That is, Don DeLong is NOT man enough to "come out " and "reason
                TOGETHER" regarding his problem with thermodynamics and whatever he
                thinks it has to do with the age of stuff, evolution, or the existence
                of God.

                Watch and see!

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • Todd S. Greene
                Don, 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
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Don,

                  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,
                  >> THE ERRORS OF WHICH WERE EXCPLICITLY POINTED OUT BY BOTH
                  >> RICK HARTZOG IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE MADE THE ARGUMENT. So
                  >> 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
                  YOURSELF BROUGHT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

                  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
                  seriously.

                  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
                  choice.

                  > 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
                  answered.

                  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.
                  [snip]

                  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
                  comets"?

                  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
                  THIS.

                  Duh.

                  > 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.
                  [snip]

                  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
                  ignored:

                  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
                  processes.

                  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.
                  [snip]

                  Something can't come from nothing.

                  Okay.

                  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
                  comets"?

                  > 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
                  comets"?

                  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
                • w_w_c_l
                  Todd, ... This link didn t work. Here is the updated link: http://www.members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html Rick
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Todd,

                    One of your links is:

                    > >> The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the
                    > >> Christian Faith
                    > >> by Allan H. Harvey
                    > >> http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

                    This link didn't work. Here is the updated link:

                    http://www.members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html


                    Rick
                  • Robert Baty
                    ... Don s problem appears to be a systemic problem commonly associated with David P. Brown and his ContendingFTF boys. You may have noticed the thread here as
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 4, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Todd, you wrote, in part:

                      > 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.

                      Don's problem appears to be a systemic problem commonly associated with David P. Brown and his ContendingFTF boys.

                      You may have noticed the thread here as to the little controversy between Daniel Denham and Donald Canny as to my status as a theist.

                      Donald Canny, for reasons he has yet to explain, deciced to classify me as an atheist.

                      Daniel Denham knows better, but, if he isn't the source for Donald Canny's deception, he has certainly been helping to promote it. Daniel Denham knows better!

                      So, we have another little exercise going on as to one of those "side issues" which will provide valuable, empirical evidence as to just how much "girlie" there is in the alleged "men" of the ContendingFTF list.

                      Todd, I think your further comments are an endorsement of my recommendations and prophecy regarding Don and thermodynamcis.

                      That is, there is yet to be an explicit agreement between you and Don regarding what the laws of thermodynamics actually state.

                      Don's tried to paraphrase them, and you have now indicated that I was correct in noting that you would deny his affirmatives on that.

                      You also concluded that it is most unlikely that Don DeLong is going to quit himself like a man and "come out" to "reason TOGETHER" with you as to the details of thermodynamics and what, if anything, they have to do with the controversy over the age of stuff and evolution.

                      I think your conclusion is correct, but I would still call to Don and his fellows to "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER"!

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.