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

Entropy

Expand Messages
  • Ken
    Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade, or fall apart in laymen s
    Message 1 of 30 , Jun 1 6:48 AM
      Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
      discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
      or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
      Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
      less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
      The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of gas,
      if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
      exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
      involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
      involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
      fall apart.

      Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in it,
      is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
      something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
      Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
      not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
      increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
      back together.

      Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has come.

      http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
    • tinroad66
      Tin: Ignorant nonsense on entropy below noted. If what you say were true it would be impossible for a fertilized egg to develop into a person. Please try
      Message 2 of 30 , Jun 1 9:14 AM
        Tin: Ignorant nonsense on entropy below noted. If what you say were
        true it would be impossible for a fertilized egg to develop into a
        person.

        Please try again.



        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Ken"
        <writingken@y...> wrote:
        > Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
        > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
        > or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
        > Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
        > less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
        > The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of
        gas,
        > if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
        > exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
        > involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
        > involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
        > fall apart.
        >
        > Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in
        it,
        > is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
        > something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
        > Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
        > not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
        > increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
        > back together.
        >
        > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
        come.
        >
        > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
      • Todd
        ... were ... Tin: Did you view the link that Ken provided? Go figure. -Todd (aka Legion05) ... degrade, ... to ... fuel. ... of ... things ... in ... been ...
        Message 3 of 30 , Jun 1 10:49 AM
          --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66"
          <tinroad66@y...> wrote:
          >
          > Tin: Ignorant nonsense on entropy below noted. If what you say
          were
          > true it would be impossible for a fertilized egg to develop into a
          > person.
          >
          > Please try again.

          Tin:

          Did you view the link that Ken provided? Go figure.

          -Todd (aka Legion05)


          >
          >
          >
          > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Ken"
          > <writingken@y...> wrote:
          > > Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
          > > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate,
          degrade,
          > > or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
          > > Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more
          to
          > > less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less
          fuel.
          > > The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out
          of
          > gas,
          > > if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
          > > exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
          > > involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
          > > involvement in the process. However, without outside help,
          things
          > > fall apart.
          > >
          > > Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything
          in
          > it,
          > > is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have
          been
          > > something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
          > > Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer
          will
          > > not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not
          automatically
          > > increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't
          come
          > > back together.
          > >
          > > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
          > come.
          > >
          > > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
        • discrete_event
          Also, evolution, specifically natural selection, would not be possible in a universe that isn t positively entropic. ... were ... degrade, ... fuel. ... in ...
          Message 4 of 30 , Jun 1 12:58 PM
            Also, evolution, specifically natural selection, would not be
            possible in a universe that isn't positively entropic.

            --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66"
            <tinroad66@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Tin: Ignorant nonsense on entropy below noted. If what you say
            were
            > true it would be impossible for a fertilized egg to develop into a
            > person.
            >
            > Please try again.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Ken"
            > <writingken@y...> wrote:
            > > Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
            > > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate,
            degrade,
            > > or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
            > > Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
            > > less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less
            fuel.
            > > The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of
            > gas,
            > > if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
            > > exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
            > > involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
            > > involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
            > > fall apart.
            > >
            > > Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything
            in
            > it,
            > > is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
            > > something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
            > > Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer
            will
            > > not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not
            automatically
            > > increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
            > > back together.
            > >
            > > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
            > come.
            > >
            > > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
          • Framis Furblongit
            ... wrote: The sun is getting colder due to less fuel. Please refer to any numbers of calculations about stellar evolution. It is the
            Message 5 of 30 , Jun 1 5:43 PM
              --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Ken"
              <writingken@y...> wrote:
              The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.


              Please refer to any numbers of calculations about stellar evolution.
              It is the tendency of older stars to by hotter than younger stars,
              simply because of the fact that there is more helium in the core and
              for fusion to be maintained, the core must be hotter. It gets hotter
              by being compressed. At the same time the increased energy output
              causes the star to swell. A star the size of the sun will grow quite
              large and effectively swallow the inner planets. I may even grow to
              the size of the earth's orbit. The inexorable rise in the output of
              the sun will make living on this planet very difficult in about 1
              billion years. By that time either we will be extinct or we will have
              spread throughout the galaxy.
            • pan762@yahoo.com
              ... Entropy is the disorder in a system. The second law of thermodyamaics says that in a close system energy (or microstates of the system if you prefer)
              Message 6 of 30 , Jun 1 6:47 PM
                In a blinding flash of insight "Ken" <writingken@...> wrote:

                >Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
                >discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
                >or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
                >Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
                >less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
                >The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of gas,
                >if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
                >exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
                >involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
                >involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
                >fall apart.

                Entropy is the disorder in a system. The second law of
                thermodyamaics says that in a close system energy (or microstates of
                the system if you prefer) tends to increase. A closed system,
                especially one as complex as the universe, is composed of subsystems
                and some of these subsystems show a decrease in entropy due to energy
                from outside the subsystem

                For example, if I heat a piece of copper it will react with oxygen
                from the air and form copper oxide. In that particular chemical
                change, entropy has decreased. To provide the energy, however, I had
                to burn methane or propane, breaking them down into CO2 and H2O
                releasing energy and increasing entropy. One microstate experienced
                an increase in entropy, transfered energy to another microstate that
                saw a decrease in entropy.

                Carbon dating requires only that the rate of radioactive decay of
                carbon-14 atoms to nitrogen-14 atoms is constant over time and that
                the rate at which organisms absorb carbon-14 atoms is also constant.
                In any case there is no direct application of entropy here.

                The sun is not growing colder. As the sun's suppy of hydrogen
                decreases it will begin to shrink which will, in turn, compress the
                atoms at the suns core which increases temperature and causes the sun
                to expand again as the next fusion of helium nuclei into carbon and
                oxygen atoms begins.

                The universe is expanding and it appears to be accelerating. As it
                does so, the distribution of matter and energy tends to be clumpy,
                forming stars, planets and other things. Will the entropy of the
                universe is increasing over all the formation of stars decrease local
                entropy.

                Finally, you car running out of gas is not an example of entropy.

                >Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in it,
                >is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
                >something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
                >Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
                >not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
                >increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
                >back together.
                >
                >Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has come.
                >
                >http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html

                But things do fall together. They do so all the time. While the
                universe expands gravitational attraction causes matter to collect and
                form stars. As stars "burn" they create atoms of heavier elements.
                Larger stars will supernova and create nebula from which the process
                starts all over again.

                You creationist should really stay away from entropy until you know
                what your talking about.





                "We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used,
                for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural
                universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot
                discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes
                used by the Creator." Duane Gish Evolution, The Fossils Say No!
              • Rupee
                ... gas, ... it, ... come. ... rupee entropy is measure of disorder, not disintegration. change of entropy in a syatem takes place with change of energy. it
                Message 7 of 30 , Jun 18 4:55 AM
                  --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Ken"
                  <writingken@y...> wrote:
                  > Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
                  > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
                  > or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
                  > Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
                  > less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
                  > The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of
                  gas,
                  > if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
                  > exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
                  > involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
                  > involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
                  > fall apart.
                  >
                  > Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in
                  it,
                  > is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
                  > something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
                  > Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
                  > not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
                  > increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
                  > back together.
                  >
                  > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
                  come.
                  >
                  > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html

                  rupee
                  entropy is measure of disorder, not disintegration. change of
                  entropy in a syatem takes place with change of energy. it is possible
                  to reduce entropy, but at the cost of energy. since the total energy
                  of cosmos is constant, entropy is constant and disorder is not
                  increasing. expansion is not disorder, again.
                  admittedly it is impossible that a computer will not build itself.
                  but computer is the result of steady evolution of technology over
                  thousands of years.
                  if man was created by an itelligent god, then adam should have a
                  computer or at least the ability to build one.
                  there was priest who said 'if god wanted us to fly he would gives us
                  wings'. if god wanted us to have computer, he would build it into us.
                  god dint, but we do.

                  This group needs you. click below to join

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/interfaith-forum
                • Phil Schuster
                  BJ : Entropy is true in specific and all cases. Example: You Your body hasn t adapted to cope with the reality of age and break down, it just breaks down and
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                    "BJ":
                    Entropy is true in specific and all cases.

                    Example: You

                    Your body hasn't adapted to cope with the reality of age and break
                    down, it just breaks down and eventually dies.

                    You don't naturally grow another lung to cope with your ailing one.

                    Your childrens children won't either.

                    There is no NATURAL adaptation here only eventual death.

                    This is true in your specific case.

                    Just what the bible says. (Romans 8)

                    And it is because of sin.


                    Phil S:
                    You need to learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection
                    entails before you try to argue against it. You make no distinction
                    between individuals, populations of individuals and species. Natural
                    selection involves populations - Not individuals. You are mixing
                    Lamark's ideas of inheriting acquired traits with Darwin's idea of
                    natural selection leading to changes within a gene pool of a
                    population by differential reproductive rates.

                    I'll give you one example of how natural selection deals with the
                    loss of a lung. If a healthy person loses a lung, that individual is
                    more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass genes for
                    good health onto the next generation. But a sickly person is more
                    likely to die prematurely after losing a lung and not have the
                    chance to pass his/her genes on to the next generation. That's how
                    natural selection works. The more "fit" traits are more likely to
                    get passed on to future generations and those features will then be
                    more prevalent in the population as time goes on. Even the AIG
                    website will concur with what I've just said.
                  • B.J.
                    Phil says: But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on to the next generation.
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                      Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                      after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on
                      to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The
                      more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                      generations and those features will then be more prevalent in the
                      population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur with
                      what I've just said.'

                      bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                      still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                      these ailments from occuring.

                      You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.

                      bj







                      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                      <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                      >
                      > "BJ":
                      > Entropy is true in specific and all cases.
                      >
                      > Example: You
                      >
                      > Your body hasn't adapted to cope with the reality of age and break
                      > down, it just breaks down and eventually dies.
                      >
                      > You don't naturally grow another lung to cope with your ailing one.
                      >
                      > Your childrens children won't either.
                      >
                      > There is no NATURAL adaptation here only eventual death.
                      >
                      > This is true in your specific case.
                      >
                      > Just what the bible says. (Romans 8)
                      >
                      > And it is because of sin.
                      >
                      >
                      > Phil S:
                      > You need to learn what the theory of evolution by natural
                      selection
                      > entails before you try to argue against it. You make no
                      distinction
                      > between individuals, populations of individuals and species.
                      Natural
                      > selection involves populations - Not individuals. You are mixing
                      > Lamark's ideas of inheriting acquired traits with Darwin's idea of
                      > natural selection leading to changes within a gene pool of a
                      > population by differential reproductive rates.
                      >
                      > I'll give you one example of how natural selection deals with the
                      > loss of a lung. If a healthy person loses a lung, that individual
                      is
                      > more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass genes for
                      > good health onto the next generation. But a sickly person is more
                      > likely to die prematurely after losing a lung and not have the
                      > chance to pass his/her genes on to the next generation. That's how
                      > natural selection works. The more "fit" traits are more likely to
                      > get passed on to future generations and those features will then
                      be
                      > more prevalent in the population as time goes on. Even the AIG
                      > website will concur with what I've just said.
                    • Phil Schuster
                      Phil says: But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on to the next generation.
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                        Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                        after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on
                        to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The
                        more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                        generations and those features will then be more prevalent in the
                        population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur with
                        what I've just said.'

                        bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                        still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                        these ailments from occuring.

                        You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.


                        Phil S:
                        Yes they do. The sickly genes tend to get weeded out while the "fit"
                        genes become more concentrated in the population so that subsequent
                        generations have more overall resilience. And if you're arguing that
                        evolution doesn't prevent people from losing a lung (it is hard to
                        even figure out what you are trying to say here) it is irrelevant
                        because loss of a lung is not inherited. Please be more clear as to
                        what you are implying.
                      • B.J.
                        What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not evolution. Death is still one per person. When you show me an exception to this other than a
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                          What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not evolution.

                          Death is still one per person.

                          When you show me an exception to this other than a supernatural
                          intervention, or a natural (not artificial) step up in the
                          evolutionary process, then you are not proving evolution.







                          --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                          <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                          > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes
                          on
                          > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The
                          > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                          > generations and those features will then be more prevalent in the
                          > population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur with
                          > what I've just said.'
                          >
                          > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                          > still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                          > these ailments from occuring.
                          >
                          > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.
                          >
                          >
                          > Phil S:
                          > Yes they do. The sickly genes tend to get weeded out while
                          the "fit"
                          > genes become more concentrated in the population so that
                          subsequent
                          > generations have more overall resilience. And if you're arguing
                          that
                          > evolution doesn't prevent people from losing a lung (it is hard to
                          > even figure out what you are trying to say here) it is irrelevant
                          > because loss of a lung is not inherited. Please be more clear as
                          to
                          > what you are implying.
                        • Phil Schuster
                          ... Phil S: It s hard to follow a thread when you keep top posting. Could you please post below the one you are responding to? That is the custom on this
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                            "B.J." <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                            > What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not evolution.
                            >
                            > Death is still one per person.
                            >
                            > When you show me an exception to this other than a supernatural
                            > intervention, or a natural (not artificial) step up in the
                            > evolutionary process, then you are not proving evolution.


                            Phil S:
                            It's hard to follow a thread when you keep top posting. Could you
                            please post below the one you are responding to? That is the custom
                            on this debate forum. Evolution happens in populations - Not in
                            individuals. Put "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" in your search
                            engine if you want to see a synopsis of the evidence. Can you
                            describe the mechanism of "Natural Selection" in your own words? I
                            just want to see what you think the term means.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > *****************************************************************
                            >
                            > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                            > <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                            > > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her
                            genes
                            > on
                            > > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The
                            > > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                            > > generations and those features will then be more prevalent in the
                            > > population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur with
                            > > what I've just said.'
                            > >
                            > > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's
                            children
                            > > still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to
                            prevent
                            > > these ailments from occuring.
                            > >
                            > > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Phil S:
                            > > Yes they do. The sickly genes tend to get weeded out while
                            > the "fit"
                            > > genes become more concentrated in the population so that
                            > subsequent
                            > > generations have more overall resilience. And if you're arguing
                            > that
                            > > evolution doesn't prevent people from losing a lung (it is hard
                            to
                            > > even figure out what you are trying to say here) it is
                            irrelevant
                            > > because loss of a lung is not inherited. Please be more clear as
                            > to
                            > > what you are implying.
                          • B.J.
                            Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator? Top posting makes more sense. Many don t want to sift through a messy message, (which most of
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                              Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator?

                              Top posting makes more sense. Many don't want to sift through a
                              messy message, (which most of the messages have been), to get to the
                              response to an actual message.

                              However, I will quote you and then respond to you by name in the
                              future, at the top.

                              bj




                              --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                              <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                              > "B.J." <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                              > > What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not
                              evolution.
                              > >
                              > > Death is still one per person.
                              > >
                              > > When you show me an exception to this other than a supernatural
                              > > intervention, or a natural (not artificial) step up in the
                              > > evolutionary process, then you are not proving evolution.
                              >
                              >
                              > Phil S:
                              > It's hard to follow a thread when you keep top posting. Could you
                              > please post below the one you are responding to? That is the
                              custom
                              > on this debate forum. Evolution happens in populations - Not in
                              > individuals. Put "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" in your search
                              > engine if you want to see a synopsis of the evidence. Can you
                              > describe the mechanism of "Natural Selection" in your own words? I
                              > just want to see what you think the term means.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > *****************************************************************
                              > >
                              > > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil
                              Schuster"
                              > > <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die
                              prematurely
                              > > > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her
                              > genes
                              > > on
                              > > > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The
                              > > > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                              > > > generations and those features will then be more prevalent in
                              the
                              > > > population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur
                              with
                              > > > what I've just said.'
                              > > >
                              > > > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's
                              > children
                              > > > still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to
                              > prevent
                              > > > these ailments from occuring.
                              > > >
                              > > > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your
                              fantasies.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Phil S:
                              > > > Yes they do. The sickly genes tend to get weeded out while
                              > > the "fit"
                              > > > genes become more concentrated in the population so that
                              > > subsequent
                              > > > generations have more overall resilience. And if you're
                              arguing
                              > > that
                              > > > evolution doesn't prevent people from losing a lung (it is
                              hard
                              > to
                              > > > even figure out what you are trying to say here) it is
                              > irrelevant
                              > > > because loss of a lung is not inherited. Please be more clear
                              as
                              > > to
                              > > > what you are implying.
                            • Phil Schuster
                              ... the ... Phil S: That s better. I either cut & paste the part I want to respond to or else delete the excess posts so they don t get cluttered. Here I just
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                                --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "B.J."
                                <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                                > Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator?
                                >
                                > Top posting makes more sense. Many don't want to sift through a
                                > messy message, (which most of the messages have been), to get to
                                the
                                > response to an actual message.
                                >
                                > However, I will quote you and then respond to you by name in the
                                > future, at the top.


                                Phil S:
                                That's better. I either cut & paste the part I want to respond to or
                                else delete the excess posts so they don't get cluttered. Here I
                                just scrolled the excess further down in the thread so it doesn't
                                get in the way. Then someone can still look it up at the bottom if
                                they want to refresh their memory.







                                >
                                *********************************************************************
                                > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                                > <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                                > > "B.J." <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                                > > > What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not
                                > evolution.
                                > > >
                                > > > Death is still one per person.
                                > > >
                                > > > When you show me an exception to this other than a
                                supernatural
                                > > > intervention, or a natural (not artificial) step up in the
                                > > > evolutionary process, then you are not proving evolution.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Phil S:
                                > > It's hard to follow a thread when you keep top posting. Could
                                you
                                > > please post below the one you are responding to? That is the
                                > custom
                                > > on this debate forum. Evolution happens in populations - Not in
                                > > individuals. Put "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" in your
                                search
                                > > engine if you want to see a synopsis of the evidence. Can you
                                > > describe the mechanism of "Natural Selection" in your own words?
                                I
                                > > just want to see what you think the term means.
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                *****************************************************************
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil
                                > Schuster"
                                > > > <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die
                                > prematurely
                                > > > > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her
                                > > genes
                                > > > on
                                > > > > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works.
                                The
                                > > > > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                                > > > > generations and those features will then be more prevalent
                                in
                                > the
                                > > > > population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur
                                > with
                                > > > > what I've just said.'
                                > > > >
                                > > > > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's
                                > > children
                                > > > > still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to
                                > > prevent
                                > > > > these ailments from occuring.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your
                                > fantasies.
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Phil S:
                                > > > > Yes they do. The sickly genes tend to get weeded out while
                                > > > the "fit"
                                > > > > genes become more concentrated in the population so that
                                > > > subsequent
                                > > > > generations have more overall resilience. And if you're
                                > arguing
                                > > > that
                                > > > > evolution doesn't prevent people from losing a lung (it is
                                > hard
                                > > to
                                > > > > even figure out what you are trying to say here) it is
                                > > irrelevant
                                > > > > because loss of a lung is not inherited. Please be more
                                clear
                                > as
                                > > > to
                                > > > > what you are implying.
                              • Tom
                                ... Typical creationist, looking for the moderator on his first posting day. ... Haven t been in newsgroups very long, have you? ...
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 25, 2005
                                  > Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator?

                                  Typical creationist, looking for the moderator on his first posting day.

                                  > Top posting makes more sense. Many don't want to sift through a
                                  > messy message, (which most of the messages have been), to get to the
                                  > response to an actual message.

                                  Haven't been in newsgroups very long, have you?


                                  > However, I will quote you and then respond to you by name in the
                                  > future, at the top.

                                  <snip remainder of post rendered useless by top post>
                                • Dave Oldridge
                                  ... This shows that you lack any real understanding of how evolution works. Let s look at a real experiment that you could even do if you bothered to learn how
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 26, 2005
                                    On 25 Jul 2005 at 16:59, B.J. wrote:

                                    > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                                    > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on
                                    > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The

                                    > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                                    > generations and those features will then be more prevalent in
                                    > the population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will
                                    > concur with what I've just said.'
                                    >
                                    > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's
                                    > children still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary
                                    > process to prevent these ailments from occuring.

                                    This shows that you lack any real understanding of how evolution
                                    works.

                                    Let's look at a real experiment that you could even do if you
                                    bothered to learn how and get the proper equipment. Take a
                                    small, monoclonal population of fruit flies (these are bred
                                    specially so as to have the same allele at both locations and the
                                    same genome in every individual....they are genetic clones).

                                    Breed that population for one generation and look at the babies.
                                    You will notice, if you look closely that there is variation in
                                    almost every observable characteristic. Take the ones with the
                                    most body hair (bristles) and the ones with the least and use
                                    those to found two separate populations. Keep the populations
                                    separate and keep selecting the one for body hair and the other
                                    for lack of it.

                                    In about twenty generations you will have two very different-
                                    looking populations of fruit flies, one nearly bald and the other
                                    quite furry. They will not usually even voluntarily interbreed.

                                    Now what can we infer from this? First of all, we can infer that
                                    all this variation in furriness came from mutations. None of it
                                    was present in the original, variation-free, monoclonal stock.
                                    Moreover, these are NATURAL mutations, since we need do nothing
                                    to actually cause them. Secondly, we can see that selection
                                    pressures concentrate the genetics for certain characteristics.
                                    Thirdly, we can see that such concentration in an isolated sub-
                                    population can lead, through behavioural isolation to prolonged
                                    and eventually complete genetic isolation.

                                    Couple these facts with the observation that isolated sub-
                                    populations have been OBSERVED to grow apart genetically and to
                                    cross a threshold where genetic interbreeding actually becomes
                                    impossible and you have all of the theorized elements of
                                    evolution by means of mutation and natural selection.

                                    That's right. All of them. All observed in nature and in the
                                    lab, experimentally.

                                    > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your
                                    > fantasies.

                                    I would strongly suggest that you take your own advice. And stop
                                    getting advice from the people you've been following, since they
                                    are clearly heretics and liars.

                                    --
                                    God is an evolutionist.

                                    Dave Oldridge
                                    ICQ 1800667
                                    VA7CZ



                                    --
                                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                                    Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/2005
                                  • Dave Oldridge
                                    ... the ... with ... children ... prevent ... fantasies. The children of the African woman who has a mutation that provides some resitance to HIV will inherit
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 26, 2005
                                      On 25 Jul 2005 at 16:59, B.J. wrote:

                                      > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                                      > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on
                                      > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The

                                      > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                                      > generations and those features will then be more prevalent in
                                      the
                                      > population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur
                                      with
                                      > what I've just said.'
                                      >
                                      > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's
                                      children
                                      > still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to
                                      prevent
                                      > these ailments from occuring.
                                      >
                                      > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your
                                      fantasies.

                                      The children of the African woman who has a mutation that
                                      provides some resitance to HIV will inherit this gene, as will
                                      some of THEIR children, and so forth. What do you think will
                                      happen to this gene in an environment where HIV is epidemic?
                                      If the epidemic lasts for ten generations, will there be a lot of
                                      her descendants around or none? What about some unsung person
                                      whose genetics make them especially prone to HIV infection. Will
                                      THEIR descendants be numerous after a ten-generation epidemic?

                                      --
                                      God is an evolutionist.

                                      Dave Oldridge
                                      ICQ 1800667
                                      VA7CZ



                                      --
                                      No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                                      Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/2005
                                    • tetonscatblue
                                      ... the ... Tom: Good compromise. Thank you. Tom ... supernatural ... you ... search ... I ... The ... in ... clear
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 26, 2005
                                        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "B.J."
                                        <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                                        > Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator?
                                        >
                                        > Top posting makes more sense. Many don't want to sift through a
                                        > messy message, (which most of the messages have been), to get to
                                        the
                                        > response to an actual message.
                                        >
                                        > However, I will quote you and then respond to you by name in the
                                        > future, at the top.
                                        >
                                        > bj

                                        Tom: Good compromise. Thank you. Tom
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                                        > <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                                        > > "B.J." <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                                        > > > What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not
                                        > evolution.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Death is still one per person.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > When you show me an exception to this other than a
                                        supernatural
                                        > > > intervention, or a natural (not artificial) step up in the
                                        > > > evolutionary process, then you are not proving evolution.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Phil S:
                                        > > It's hard to follow a thread when you keep top posting. Could
                                        you
                                        > > please post below the one you are responding to? That is the
                                        > custom
                                        > > on this debate forum. Evolution happens in populations - Not in
                                        > > individuals. Put "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" in your
                                        search
                                        > > engine if you want to see a synopsis of the evidence. Can you
                                        > > describe the mechanism of "Natural Selection" in your own words?
                                        I
                                        > > just want to see what you think the term means.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        *****************************************************************
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil
                                        > Schuster"
                                        > > > <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die
                                        > prematurely
                                        > > > > after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her
                                        > > genes
                                        > > > on
                                        > > > > to the next generation. That's how natural selection works.
                                        The
                                        > > > > more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                                        > > > > generations and those features will then be more prevalent
                                        in
                                        > the
                                        > > > > population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur
                                        > with
                                        > > > > what I've just said.'
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's
                                        > > children
                                        > > > > still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to
                                        > > prevent
                                        > > > > these ailments from occuring.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your
                                        > fantasies.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Phil S:
                                        > > > > Yes they do. The sickly genes tend to get weeded out while
                                        > > > the "fit"
                                        > > > > genes become more concentrated in the population so that
                                        > > > subsequent
                                        > > > > generations have more overall resilience. And if you're
                                        > arguing
                                        > > > that
                                        > > > > evolution doesn't prevent people from losing a lung (it is
                                        > hard
                                        > > to
                                        > > > > even figure out what you are trying to say here) it is
                                        > > irrelevant
                                        > > > > because loss of a lung is not inherited. Please be more
                                        clear
                                        > as
                                        > > > to
                                        > > > > what you are implying.
                                      • drvr2hrdwr
                                        From: B.J. Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator? Neil: There is no moderation on this list. Top posting makes more sense. Neil:
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 27, 2005
                                           
                                           
                                          From: B.J.

                                          Phil,This may be what the moderator wants. Are you the moderator?
                                          Neil:  There is no moderation on this list.
                                           
                                           


                                          Top posting makes more sense.
                                          Neil:  If you prefer backwards thinking and speech making to conversation. 
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                          Many don't want to sift through a
                                          messy message, (which most of the messages have been), to get to the
                                          response to an actual message.
                                          Neil:  Yes, valid point.  I suggest that people do more trimming.  And for God's sake would you all please tag your lines?  After a couple exchanges untagged text is almost unreadable.
                                           
                                           
                                           


                                          However, I will quote you and then respond to you by name in the
                                          future, at the top.
                                          Neil:  Bad form, BJ.  Of course, we are all free to post anything in any format we choose.  But I would strongly suggest cutting irrelevant text,  spacing down to separate points, tagging your lines, using indent to left margin or > symbols to denote stacking, and above all, avoid top posting like the plague.
                                        • tinroad66
                                          ... Tin: What you are speaking of is unknown because you are a top posting ninny.
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 27, 2005
                                            --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "B.J."
                                            <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                                            > What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not evolution.

                                            Tin: What you are speaking of is unknown because you are a top posting
                                            ninny.
                                          • tinroad66
                                            ... evolution. ... Tin: But that s the point. You don t expect him to be able to provide a relevant point by point response do you ? Nah. He s capable of top
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jul 27, 2005
                                              --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Schuster"
                                              <prschuster@q...> wrote:
                                              > "B.J." <oikonomia@y...> wrote:
                                              > > What you are speaking of here is either unproven or not
                                              evolution.
                                              > >
                                              > > Death is still one per person.
                                              > >
                                              > > When you show me an exception to this other than a supernatural
                                              > > intervention, or a natural (not artificial) step up in the
                                              > > evolutionary process, then you are not proving evolution.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Phil S:
                                              > It's hard to follow a thread when you keep top posting.

                                              Tin: But that's the point. You don't expect him to be able to
                                              provide a relevant point by point response do you ?


                                              Nah. He's capable of top posting a few mindless assertions. That's
                                              it.







                                              Could you
                                              > please post below the one you are responding to? That is the custom
                                              > on this debate forum. Evolution happens in populations - Not in
                                              > individuals. Put "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" in your search
                                              > engine if you want to see a synopsis of the evidence. Can you
                                              > describe the mechanism of "Natural Selection" in your own words? I
                                              > just want to see what you think the term means.
                                              > >


                                              Tin: And if you can't just top post some little assertions.
                                            • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
                                              ... From: B.J. To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:59 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Entropy Phil says:
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Aug 1, 2005
                                                 
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: B.J.
                                                Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:59 AM
                                                Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Entropy

                                                Phil says: 'But a sickly person is more likely to die prematurely
                                                after losing a lung and not have the chance to pass his/her genes on
                                                to the next generation. That's how natural selection works. The
                                                more "fit" traits are more likely to get passed on to future
                                                generations and those features will then be more prevalent in the
                                                population as time goes on. Even the AIG website will concur with
                                                what I've just said.'

                                                bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                                                still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                                                these ailments from occuring.

                                                You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.
                                                 
                                                Leon: Evolution doesn't happen to INDIVIDUALS, bj. You need to stop getting evolution mixed up with your fantasies about it.
                                              • Gabor Horvath
                                                bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children s children still don t naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent these ailments from
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Aug 1, 2005
                                                  bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                                                  still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                                                  these ailments from occuring.

                                                  You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.
                                                   
                                                  Leon: Evolution doesn't happen to INDIVIDUALS, bj. You need to stop getting evolution mixed up with your fantasies about it.

                                                  Gabor: What do you mean Leon? Populations do evolve but individuals do not evolve? Is that what you mean?
                                                   
                                                  Thanks: Gabor
                                                • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
                                                  ... From: Gabor Horvath To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re:
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Aug 2, 2005
                                                     
                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:10 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Entropy

                                                    bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                                                    still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                                                    these ailments from occuring.

                                                    You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.
                                                     
                                                    Leon: Evolution doesn't happen to INDIVIDUALS, bj. You need to stop getting evolution mixed up with your fantasies about it.

                                                    Gabor: What do you mean Leon? Populations do evolve but individuals do not evolve? Is that what you mean?
                                                     
                                                    Thanks: Gabor
                                                     
                                                    Leon: Yep.
                                                  • wisdumbwon
                                                    ... From: Gabor Horvath To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re:
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Aug 2, 2005


                                                      "Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret." <lalbert001@...> wrote:
                                                       
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:10 PM
                                                      Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Entropy

                                                      bj responds: This still is not evolution. Your children's children
                                                      still don't naturally advance in the evolutinary process to prevent
                                                      these ailments from occuring.

                                                      You need to stop getting your laws mixed up with your fantasies.
                                                       
                                                      Leon: Evolution doesn't happen to INDIVIDUALS, bj. You need to stop getting evolution mixed up with your fantasies about it.


                                                      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
                                                    • Herbert B. Borteck
                                                      eduard --- It all depends upon what you are talking about. If we are speaking about the end of things in the sense of entropy, then moving objects represent a
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Jun 26 12:39 PM
                                                        eduard ---
                                                        It all depends upon what you are talking about. If we are
                                                        speaking about the end of things in the sense of entropy, then moving
                                                        objects represent a certain kenetic energy. The loss of this energy
                                                        means that things stop. Velocity goes to zero and enthropy to
                                                        infinity.


                                                        Reply;
                                                        I am being picky here, but I think the concept is important.
                                                        Since the total amount of energy in the universe cannot be
                                                        either increased or decreased, when the velocity becomes the
                                                        average velocity of all particles, entropy is at its maximum.

                                                        There are two statements that are wrong in eduard's post.
                                                        ONE: Total velocity of all particles can never reach zero and
                                                        TWO: entropy can never reach infinity.
                                                        Herb
                                                      • eduard at home
                                                        eduard --- It all depends upon what you are talking about. If we are speaking about the end of things in the sense of entropy, then moving objects represent a
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Jun 26 2:20 PM
                                                          eduard ---
                                                              It all depends upon what you are talking about.  If we are
                                                          speaking about the end of things in the sense of entropy, then moving
                                                          objects represent a certain kenetic energy.  The loss of this energy
                                                          means that things stop.  Velocity goes to zero and enthropy to
                                                          infinity. 

                                                          Herb Reply;
                                                          I am being picky here, but I think the concept is important.
                                                          Since the total amount of energy in the universe cannot be
                                                          either increased or decreased, when the velocity becomes the
                                                          average velocity of all particles, entropy is at its maximum.

                                                          There are two statements that are wrong in eduard's post.
                                                          ONE: Total velocity of all particles can never reach zero and
                                                          TWO: entropy can never reach infinity.
                                                           
                                                          eduard ---
                                                              I disagree.  If you have two particles and one is moving at 60mph and the other at 80mph, you would still have kenetic energy if both are now travelling at the average of 70mph.  Even if you factor in the vectors of these velocities, the result is still some energy for both or either.  Both particles must stop in order to have the final end of the universe.   Also, this is the result regardless of frames of reference. 
                                                           
                                                              As to entropy, I don't recall the formula [I graduated in 1969], but it would seem to me that it's inversely proportional to available energy.  Therefore, when the energy goes to zero, entropy becomes infinite.
                                                           
                                                        • Herbert B. Borteck
                                                          eduard --- I disagree. If you have two particles and one is moving at 60mph and the other at 80mph, you would still have kenetic energy if both are now
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Jun 26 4:44 PM
                                                            eduard ---
                                                            I disagree. If you have two particles and one is moving at
                                                            60mph and the other at 80mph, you would still have kenetic energy if
                                                            both are now travelling at the average of 70mph. Even if you factor
                                                            in the vectors of these velocities, the result is still some energy
                                                            for both or either. Both particles must stop in order to have the
                                                            final end of the universe. Also, this is the result regardless of
                                                            frames of reference.

                                                            As to entropy, I don't recall the formula [I graduated in 1969],
                                                            but it would seem to me that it's inversely proportional to
                                                            available energy. Therefore, when the energy goes to zero, entropy
                                                            becomes infinite.


                                                            Reply;
                                                            I do not understand your first paragraph. In my thinking (which
                                                            may certainly be wrong) when all energy available is at an equal
                                                            status, no work can be done. Example: water running downhill had
                                                            evergy that can be used for work but once it reaches sea level, it
                                                            can no longer do work.

                                                            As for your second paragraph, entropy is inversely proportionate
                                                            to the energy available to do work. When there is no more available,
                                                            you have maximal entropy, NOT infinite entropy.

                                                            I am always open to correction. ;-)
                                                            Herb
                                                          • eduard at home
                                                            eduard --- I disagree. If you have two particles and one is moving at 60mph and the other at 80mph, you would still have kenetic energy if both are now
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Jun 26 7:03 PM
                                                              eduard ---
                                                                  I disagree.  If you have two particles and one is moving at
                                                              60mph and the other at 80mph, you would still have kenetic energy if
                                                              both are now travelling at the average of 70mph.  Even if you factor
                                                              in the vectors of these velocities, the result is still some energy
                                                              for both or either.  Both particles must stop in order to have the
                                                              final end of the universe.   Also, this is the result regardless of
                                                              frames of reference. 
                                                               
                                                                  As to entropy, I don't recall the formula [I graduated in 1969],
                                                              but it would seem to me that it's inversely proportional to
                                                              available energy.  Therefore, when the energy goes to zero, entropy
                                                              becomes infinite.

                                                              Herb Reply;
                                                              I do not understand your first paragraph.  In my thinking (which
                                                              may certainly be wrong) when all energy available is at an equal
                                                              status, no work can be done.  Example: water running downhill had
                                                              evergy that can be used for work but once it reaches sea level, it
                                                              can no longer do work.

                                                              As for your second paragraph, entropy is inversely proportionate
                                                              to the energy available to do work.  When there is no more available,
                                                              you have maximal entropy, NOT infinite entropy.

                                                              I am always open to correction.   ;-)
                                                               
                                                              eduard ---
                                                                  I thought we were talking about the heat death of the universe.  Water may seek it's own level, but it still contains energy.  The oceans will turn to ice [ I'm ignoring the expansion of the sun bit here].  The stars will go out one at a time, till the sky is all black.  The remaining planets spin into their dead suns.  Eventually, even the atoms collapse into themselves.  Then after so many trillions of years the Big Slam happens again and we start all over.
                                                               
                                                                  As to the value of entropy, I would have to look into the books again.  But it still seems to me that this here "maximal" would be infinite.  But then we are talking about the end of the universe, so it would not be unusual to speak in terms of the infinite.
                                                               
                                                            • Herb
                                                              Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Mar 7, 2012
                                                                Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

                                                                First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. While energy is invariably conserved, the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

                                                                Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

                                                                Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has.

                                                                Dear Dan;
                                                                Above are the laws of thermodynamics as explained by Newton.

                                                                On earth the second law does not apply. This is because we are not an "enclosed system."
                                                                We are getting new energy from our Sun. When the Sun dies out then the second law will apply to us.
                                                                This is the part of Newton's laws that your messages ignored.

                                                                Some day, in the future we will not get any more energy from the Sun and then our entropy will increase.
                                                                Herb
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.