If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   List of the ten most outrageous Creationists' claims to counter scientific theories. Basically, it all boils down to "Science can't explain 'X' 100%, therefore Jesus riding on a Raptor"   (io9.com) divider line 294
    More: Stupid, logical possibility, raptor, counter scientific theories, second law of thermodynamics, rocky planet, complex systems, biblical literalism, biological systems  
•       •       •

9236 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 10:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



294 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-07 03:15:25 PM

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.

Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.


Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.

Biology does the same with compounds.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:37 PM

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.

Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.


Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.
 
2012-12-07 03:37:31 PM

Raharu: Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.

It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.


...suddenly I want to start a fund to get him the help he so desperately needs...

...wait...it just passed. He's a dick.

/In all seriousness, though. He NEEDS help. SOMEONE must know him; PLEASE get him to the psychiatrist, preferably BEFORE he hurts someone.
 
2012-12-07 03:45:33 PM

RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.


That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.
 
2012-12-07 03:54:09 PM

RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.


Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.
 
2012-12-07 03:59:32 PM

Ishkur: All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.


Interesting thought, but isn't it possible that the universal e is transforming into another state by the process of creating black holes?

Here's something else I've been pondering. Doesn't the expansion of the universe itself violate the 2nd?
 
2012-12-07 04:03:12 PM

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.

That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.


It may be helpful to think of the universe as a rollercoaster -- you start at the top of a high hill, and from there you go down and then up and then side to side and through loops that appear vastly more complex than a fall straight to the ground, but eventually friction wins out and the cars just can't go anymore -- you've lost too much energy to keep going, and the lost energy is incapable of coming back to give you a push (since it's lost in heat, and heat just wants to spread out to uniformity).
 
2012-12-07 04:04:11 PM

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.

Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.


Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?
 
2012-12-07 04:06:17 PM

RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?


The "more complex" part is only sustained through a massive outpouring of energy. Eventually the well runs dry.
 
2012-12-07 04:07:08 PM

Epicedion: Ishkur: RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.

That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.

It may be helpful to think of the universe as a rollercoaster -- you start at the top of a high hill, and from there you go down and then up and then side to side and through loops that appear vastly more complex than a fall straight to the ground, but eventually friction wins out and the cars just can't go anymore -- you've lost too much energy to keep going, and the lost energy is incapable of coming back to give you a push (since it's lost in heat, and heat just wants to spread out to uniformity).


If space were finite, I could see that, but space is being created all the time, and the more space there is, the more space is created.
 
2012-12-07 04:07:48 PM

Epicedion: RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?

The "more complex" part is only sustained through a massive outpouring of energy. Eventually the well runs dry.


Why?
 
2012-12-07 04:09:55 PM

RedVentrue: Ishkur: RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.

Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.

Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?


To be a little more complex, we're falling toward an asymptotic universal ground state where every point in the universe has just as much energy as every other point. In this state, things just don't move anymore -- to get motion you have to go from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state, like with dropping a baseball (the baseball must be raised against the force of gravity, requiring work, in order to fall, otherwise it just sits at the lowest potential energy state available, most commonly represented as the ground). Sometime in the future, it's all ground all the time.
 
2012-12-07 04:13:18 PM

RedVentrue: Doesn't the expansion of the universe itself violate the 2nd?


Link

No, it, at least in concept, is perfectly in line with it.

Drop a single drop of red food coloring into a glass of water. It dissipates and turns the water pink. That action is stopped by the glass itself. It is not in isolation, but containment. The process is halted.

Drop a single drop in an ocean, and eventually, that drop may as well have never existed. It's dissipated so far that it's base components are leagues apart, and these base components, eventually will decompose.
 
2012-12-07 04:16:39 PM

RedVentrue: Interesting thought, but isn't it possible that the universal e is transforming into another state by the process of creating black holes?


Black Holes evaporate too.

RedVentrue: Here's something else I've been pondering. Doesn't the expansion of the universe itself violate the 2nd?


No, in fact the expansion of the Universe is what's causing the 2nd Law. If there was no expansion there'd be no laws of thermodynamics, period.


I hate using analogies, but let me draw you a stupid one: Take a glass of milk. Pour it on the ground. Watch the puddle of milk slowly spread and stretch out, and get thinner and thinner and flatter as time goes on. That's all the 2nd Law does: Flatten out all the energy in the Universe. But it is NOT a uniform distribution: Occasionally, some parts may push into other parts, causing bulges and ripples and other uneven effects in the milk-puddle. What you are doing is looking at these ripples and claiming that the puddle is not spreading out because that ripple isn't. But ultimately everything flattens out in the longterm.

That's where Earth, the sun, and all life is existing right now in terms of the Universe: In one of those little ripples. It just looks like an increase in energy on that scale. But the Universe itself is flat (and that's a mathematically proven certainty, not a metaphor).
 
2012-12-07 04:20:21 PM

RedVentrue: Why?


Simply, every process generates heat, and heat likes to spread out. Heat can do work while it spreads, but it will only go from areas of high heat to areas of low heat, and only until those areas are equal in heat.

For example, the sun generates a gajillion heat units, which go all out into space in all directions equally. Some of those hit the earth, and as that interacts with us we take that heat energy and redistribute it into weather, plants, turning liquid ice to water, and so on. We then likewise radiate heat back into space.

In a longer analogy, think of it as boiling water to cook pasta. The stove produces the heat, which makes the water hot, which causes changes in the pasta. The stove can't run indefinitely because it's hooked up to a power plant that has a coal fuel supply. The coal fuel supply is limited to the total amount of coal on earth. If you run the stove long enough to cook the pasta, eventually you eat up all the coal and the stove goes off forever, and no more pasta ever gets cooked.

So anyway, back on the heat stuff. The universe is really big and mostly super cold, so heat spreads out rapidly into the universe, and carries with it pieces of stars, gas clouds, and whatnot. These mash up together and make new stars, planets, etc. Eventually those run out of juice and spread their heat back out into the universe again, but every time this happens the heat spreads out further and further, and a portion of it simply escapes into a state of unusability -- all of this wasted heat energy settles into the lowest possible state, never to do work again.

Eventually all the energy ends up like this.
 
2012-12-07 04:20:50 PM

RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time,


What do you mean by "complex"?

Be careful when you make anthropocentric judgement calls about the properties of the Universe. The Universe is under no obligation to validate our anthropocentrism.
 
2012-12-07 04:35:10 PM

Epicedion: So anyway, back on the heat stuff. The universe is really big and mostly super cold, so heat spreads out rapidly into the universe, and carries with it pieces of stars, gas clouds, and whatnot. These mash up together and make new stars, planets, etc. Eventually those run out of juice and spread their heat back out into the universe again, but every time this happens the heat spreads out further and further, and a portion of it simply escapes into a state of unusability -- all of this wasted heat energy settles into the lowest possible state, never to do work again.

Eventually all the energy ends up like this.



Look at it abother way. When matter becomes dense enough, it takes in heat energy, instead of releasing it, except for Hawking radiation, and I'm not sure what to think about that.

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time,

What do you mean by "complex"?

Be careful when you make anthropocentric judgement calls about the properties of the Universe. The Universe is under no obligation to validate our anthropocentrism.


I mean that matter moves up the periodic table over time by the process of fusion. When matter becomes complex and dense enough, it punches a hole in the universe.
 
2012-12-07 04:36:33 PM
OK, now it's starting to sound like IDW.
 
2012-12-07 04:49:31 PM
3. too many variables, besides anything designed already contains the appearance of accelerated rate vs. assuming unintelligent cause, in the end distance =/= time, assuming one view vs. the other proves nothing

4. classification of life is an ongoing process that even the smartest biologist struggle to agree on, and considering the huge amounts of bias each one brings to the table isn't helping either, however concerning the irrefutable scientific fact that we have conclusive evidence that modern homo sapiens are direct descendants from apeicus imagininium, is simply more wishful thinking of the over religious zealots, likewise if such evidence were to be found the equally religious zealots would find a way to rationalize it as something else anyway. evolution is a scientific fact. all the bullshiat that the anti-theists try to sweep under the umbrella is not.

5. i'm getting tired of listening to YECs tell us exactly how God created the universe, as if they were there, and even more tired of atheist evolutionists doing the exact same thing (which is even worse when they do it in the name of "science") butthurt wishful thinking =/= science, in the end delusional sessions of sophistry can convince anyone of anything their twisted little heart's desire, we don't have nearly sufficient data or understanding to postulate such things and spend way too much time inferencing theoretical what-ifs

6. too many words and feelings, should say "The earth is not a closed system" ~The End. also if you don't understand how biology or physics work, then don't "debate" them, get an edumucation

7. no one has a farking clue what a global flood looks like nor what sort of circumstances it would produce, if you're going to masturbate please do it in the privacy of your own home

8. while there are alternative forms of radioactive dating, we've unfortunately already introduced the circular logic of "calibrating" one with the other (geologic columns, etc..) heavy amounts of extrapolation and inference are needed beyond a veeeeery small data set, tough it is amusing to see how confident scienticians are knowing for a scientific fact how to date things using a data set of ~6,000 years to proudly claim the precise dating of objects that are billions of years old (give or take a few seconds) meanwhile in the same breath showing their complete incompetence attempting to date things a few years old and getting that wrong, we have many centuries to go before we even begin to produce scientific measurements with a respectable amount of confidence

9. and? yes, ID needs to get off their lazy butt and produce some actual science and less touchy feely spiritual babbling, i can't help but notice how quickly the opposing team becomes silent in this area

problem?

10. no one has a farking clue what a global flood looks like or would produce, YEC like to use the Flood rug to sweep everything under on the same note that anti-theists like to use "evolution" rug to sweep everything under, both are equally lazy and stupid
 
2012-12-07 04:59:06 PM

RedVentrue: I mean that matter moves up the periodic table over time by the process of fusion. When matter becomes complex and dense enough, it punches a hole in the universe.


That's actually not what it's doing at all. Incidentally: Black Holes remember everything they eat and they eventually spit it all back out. But there's something I don't think you're grasping, so let me give you a little History of Heat:

When the Big Bang started, time didn't exist. The Universe had to invent time in order for it to have a beginning. This was called the Planck Epoch, and things were so hot that there was only one force called the grand unified force. Nothing else existed because things were too hot.

About 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Grand Unification Epoch. The grand unified force split into two forces: Gravity and the electronuclear force. Nothing else existed because things were too hot.

About 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Electroweak Epoch. The electronuclear force split into two forces: The strong nuclear force and the electroweak force. It also underwent a massive inflationary period that gave it enough room to cool down and create particles. At 10-32 seconds, it created quarks, anti-quarks, gluons, bosons and other particles with stupid names. Things were still too hot for them to do anything but run into and annihilate each other, however.

About 10-12 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Quark Epoch. The electroweak force split into two forces: Electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, bringing the four fundamental forces of the Universe to their present form. Things were now cool enough for mass to exist (cf. higgs-boson), but it was still too hot for the particles to combine.

About 10-6 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Hadron Epoch. Finally, the temperature of the Universe was cool enough to allow the quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons. The first hydrogen nucleus was formed approximately one millisecond after the Big Bang. Things were still too hot for anything else.

About 1 second after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Lepton Epoch. Neutrinos stopped interacting with other particles and the Universe expanded and cooled to the point that particles and anti-particles stopped annihilating each other which created, for the first time, an excess surplus of "stuff". This is why we have something rather than nothing.

(And on the 7th Epoch, the Universe rested)

A few minutes later things were cool enough for the first helium nucleus. A few hundred thousand years later, things had cooled down enough for helium and hydrogen to pick up electrons to become the first atoms. About 100 million years later, the first star. A few hundred million years later, the first galaxy. 9 billion years later, the first organic compounds. 11 billion years later, the first life.

But the crucial thing you have to understand about this process is heat. These things came about only when things got cool enough for them to do so. And things are going to get colder. To the point where life cannot survive, stars cannot form, galaxies cannot even hold together, and soon every molecule will be ripped apart and pushed away from every other molecule, as the dominating force of the expansion of the Universe overrides all the other forces and everything flattens out into Heat Death.

So I wouldn't necessarily call anything that's happening in the Universe "complex". If you define it to mean abundance, every earlier incarnation of the Universe had far more abundance of "stuff" in a much smaller area. But the stuff hasn't gotten more or less than what it is simply because we can interact with precious metals and not the quarks and gluons holding them together; your fallacy is using the human scale of classification as a qualifier. It's all the same elementary stuff to the Universe at large: The same quarks that make up your hand are in a stream of water, a moon rock and the core of the sun. There's no real delineation between matter and energy -- only one of scale and dimension.
 
2012-12-07 05:01:15 PM

Ishkur: I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


wow that is like prophetic dude, it's a risky bet, but seeing how your intellect is sooo deep and mysterious... oh wait it's right there in the thread, in multiple posts

even the dumbest idiots wouldn't high five you for such a stupid case of stating the obvious while attempting to be clever:

meat0918: You'd be right.


i stand correct

never underestimate the power of stupidity, the IB has tapped into its unlimited POWER...

though for the record i will agree with you:

Ishkur: I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


this is the easiest way to mock the IB, all you have to do is quote their posts, no need for snark or satire

like shooting fish in a barrel, without having to shoot, because the fish are so stupid they shoot themselves

full speed ahead
 
2012-12-07 05:15:38 PM

RedVentrue: I drunk what: has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game

Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

9. Neither side can prove a damn thing here. Philisophical argument. 0 points.

10. No one witnessed and documented the formation of GC. 0 points.


1. not always, and hoaxes usually don't last long, you can't fool all of the people all of the time
2. yeah they are (simplified), but figuring out whether or not the universe is a closed or open system brings up a fun puzzle, however this has no bearing on evolution
3. too many variable built on too many presumptions
4. scientists still can't properly define it and are piss poor at summarizing it, it's just their giant comfort umbrella, equivalent to the religious belief of "goddidit"
5. isn't it fun guessing what happened yesterday, and what will happen tomorrow?
6. they are called laws for a reason, but 2nd law still doesn't address cause and effect
7. whatever floats your boat
8. it's rather embarrassing when a guy like kent hovind educates you on how bad you are at science
9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?
10. and all current theories sound like fussy 2nd graders trying to have a pissing contest
 
2012-12-07 05:21:15 PM

RedVentrue: I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)


good on you, and try not to make a science out of your religion

what is your religion so that i can make fun of it?
 
2012-12-07 05:35:30 PM

Raharu: Ishkur: It amuses me that i have become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.

It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.


lulz, it's so cute how Raharu has to read posts for Ishkur, because Ishkur is too stupid to do it by himself

good boy, now go fetch the paper Raharu, ....beg ......beg, you get a treat

/why is Ishkur putting peanut butter on his wang?
//you don't have to trick him
 
2012-12-07 06:10:44 PM

Ishkur: But the crucial thing you have to understand about this process is heat. These things came about only when things got cool enough for them to do so. And things are going to get colder. To the point where life cannot survive, stars cannot form, galaxies cannot even hold together, and soon every molecule will be ripped apart and pushed away from every other molecule, as the dominating force of the expansion of the Universe overrides all the other forces and everything flattens out into Heat Death.

So I wouldn't necessarily call anything that's happening in the Universe "complex". If you define it to mean abundance, every earlier incarnation of the Universe had far more abundance of "stuff" in a much smaller area. But the stuff hasn't gotten more or less than what it is simply because we can interact with precious metals and not the quarks and gluons holding them together; your fallacy is using the human scale of classification as a qualifier. It's all the same elementary stuff to the Universe at large: The same quarks that make up your hand are in a stream of water, a moon rock and the core of the sun. There's no real delineation between matter and energy -- only one of scale and dimension.


Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns? The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating. I agree that the universe is getting larger and colder, but matter is still moving up the periodic table. I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.
 
2012-12-07 06:16:07 PM

I drunk what: RedVentrue: I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)

good on you, and try not to make a science out of your religion

what is your religion so that i can make fun of it?


I don't fit into any one group, but I lean Buddhist.
 
2012-12-07 06:24:06 PM

RedVentrue: Ishkur: But the crucial thing you have to understand about this process is heat. These things came about only when things got cool enough for them to do so. And things are going to get colder. To the point where life cannot survive, stars cannot form, galaxies cannot even hold together, and soon every molecule will be ripped apart and pushed away from every other molecule, as the dominating force of the expansion of the Universe overrides all the other forces and everything flattens out into Heat Death.

So I wouldn't necessarily call anything that's happening in the Universe "complex". If you define it to mean abundance, every earlier incarnation of the Universe had far more abundance of "stuff" in a much smaller area. But the stuff hasn't gotten more or less than what it is simply because we can interact with precious metals and not the quarks and gluons holding them together; your fallacy is using the human scale of classification as a qualifier. It's all the same elementary stuff to the Universe at large: The same quarks that make up your hand are in a stream of water, a moon rock and the core of the sun. There's no real delineation between matter and energy -- only one of scale and dimension.

Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns? The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating. I agree that the universe is getting larger and colder, but matter is still moving up the periodic table. I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.


Actually matter moves toward the middle of the periodic table, and generally stops at Iron. Iron isn't particularly prone to fission or fusion.
 
2012-12-07 06:29:56 PM

RedVentrue: Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns?


What do you mean by "complex patterns"?

It's all the same, things are just cooler. Those "complex patterns" only exist to humans. They're human constructs placed upon the properties of the Universe for purposes of understanding it better in human terms. But they don't actually exist to the greater Universe at large.

RedVentrue: The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating.


No its not, it's actually breaking down. All matter eventually decays into non-matter.

RedVentrue: but matter is still moving up the periodic table.


No it's not, it has stopped at element 92. Anything heavier is unstable and decays too quickly. Heavier elements decay the fastest, so ultimately matter will move back down the periodic table until nothing is left again except H. And then the H will break down into quarks....

RedVentrue: I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.


Heat islands surrounded by what? The absolute zero of space. So what happens to the heat at the edge of those islands? ....right: It wafts into space, slowly shrinking the island into nothingness.

In some sense, we're there already. Galaxies tend to clump into not islands, but long, interconnected strands of superclusters surrounding pockets of absolute nothingness. Those strands are being stretched apart.
 
2012-12-07 06:32:32 PM

I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?


Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.
 
2012-12-07 06:35:21 PM

Epicedion: Actually matter moves toward the middle of the periodic table, and generally stops at Iron. Iron isn't particularly prone to fission or fusion.


I also want to mention that when I talk about matter decaying, its in the order of trillions of years.

Uranium is the most unstable naturally occurring element in the Universe and it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.
 
2012-12-07 06:55:08 PM

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns?

What do you mean by "complex patterns"?

It's all the same, things are just cooler. Those "complex patterns" only exist to humans. They're human constructs placed upon the properties of the Universe for purposes of understanding it better in human terms. But they don't actually exist to the greater Universe at large.

RedVentrue: The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating.

No its not, it's actually breaking down. All matter eventually decays into non-matter.

RedVentrue: but matter is still moving up the periodic table.

No it's not, it has stopped at element 92. Anything heavier is unstable and decays too quickly. Heavier elements decay the fastest, so ultimately matter will move back down the periodic table until nothing is left again except H. And then the H will break down into quarks....

RedVentrue: I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.

Heat islands surrounded by what? The absolute zero of space. So what happens to the heat at the edge of those islands? ....right: It wafts into space, slowly shrinking the island into nothingness.

In some sense, we're there already. Galaxies tend to clump into not islands, but long, interconnected strands of superclusters surrounding pockets of absolute nothingness. Those strands are being stretched apart.


I concede the point. I'll be busy studying radioactive decay for a while.
 
2012-12-07 06:57:04 PM

Ishkur: Epicedion: Actually matter moves toward the middle of the periodic table, and generally stops at Iron. Iron isn't particularly prone to fission or fusion.

I also want to mention that when I talk about matter decaying, its in the order of trillions of years.

Uranium is the most unstable naturally occurring element in the Universe and it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.


I thought uranium turned into lead. What does lead turn into?
 
2012-12-07 07:24:59 PM

RedVentrue: I thought uranium turned into lead. What does lead turn into?


bullets.
 
2012-12-07 07:48:47 PM

RedVentrue: I don't fit into any one group, but I lean Buddhist.


do you believe Buddha is a deity?

btw are you familiar with the buddhist-hindu history?

RedVentrue: Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.


does this environment have limits? (where does it begin and end?) are stars, rocks and river part of nature?

so then whatever created life is unnatural?
 
2012-12-07 07:55:26 PM

Ishkur: That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.


how much uranium was on earth when it was first formed?

also, if you don't mind

1.bp.blogspot.com

how long has this candle been burning?

i've been watching it for about 2 seconds, so i'm guessing about 6,000 years

give or take a day, since half of it is gone
 
2012-12-07 08:04:30 PM

RedVentrue: I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?

Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.


When IDW asks you to define nature, he's merely waiting for a chance to go off on how stupid you are and lecture you on his definition of it.
 
2012-12-07 08:50:57 PM

RedVentrue: I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?

Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.


Great. Someone went and started talking definitions with this moron. Seriously. Since you didn't get it the first time, here it is again, all big, bolded and centered so you CAN'T miss it:

Originally posted by Ishkur, with modifications by me.

I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached) or
3) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which includes one or more of the following: a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle, as evidenced by his refusal to accept or debate the basic dictionary definition of the word). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every thread pertinent to his special brand of Christian theology (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.


Seriously, you have nothing to gain from talking to him, other than maybe cirrhosis.

Keizer_Ghidorah: When IDW asks you to define nature, he's merely waiting for a chance to go off on how stupid you are and lecture you on his definition of it.


You give him too much credit. He never tells you what his definition is.
 
2012-12-07 11:15:30 PM

I drunk what: Ishkur: That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.

how much uranium was on earth when it was first formed?

also, if you don't mind

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400]

how long has this candle been burning?

i've been watching it for about 2 seconds, so i'm guessing about 6,000 years

give or take a day, since half of it is gone


On second thought, nature is everything, everywhere. Nature is unity.

friday13: RedVentrue: I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?

Snip

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights t ...


I take full responsibility for whatever I say to IDW. You will be held at no liability whatsoever.
 
2012-12-08 02:12:06 AM

meat0918: Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.
H
You'd be right.


It's as if Rotsky showed up in every thread to indicate how how meant to do that., for around thirty posts a thread, day in and day out.
 
2012-12-08 03:03:44 AM

RedVentrue: I take full responsibility for whatever I say to IDW. You will be held at no liability whatsoever.


Put your therapist on speed-dial before continuing.
 
2012-12-08 06:54:52 AM
I wonder what....nahh, I'm not gonna say it.

He'd pick it right up and beat it into the ground. And then dig a hole to beat it further into.

And then he would belabor the unhappy shovel with his insane repetitive sophistry
for digging in an insufficiently obscure and tangential way. 

Meh.
 
2012-12-08 07:49:00 AM

friday13: He never tells you what his definition is.


on the contrary, i tell anyone anytime they ask and it is even posted for the public to peruse at their leisure

and considering that fact, ONLY an IDIOT would claim that i change the definition at will or that i am withholding information in a secretive or manipulative fashion

but if you are having trouble reading english at a fifth grade level, i'd be happy to assist... which word(s) are you not able to understand?

RedVentrue: On second thought, nature is everything, everywhere. Nature is unity.


i'm a bit confused why you posted this in response to my post to ishkur? (on a different topic) but i'm guessing your quote button malfunctioned

anyway, if Nature is "everything & everywhere" ("unity") then that means that there isn't anything that is either unnatural nor supernatural and the word Nature itself sorta ceases to have an significant meaning since it cannot be distinguished from any other thing, for example:

if i were to ask you " Is it Natural for a human mother to eat her babies? "

how would you respond, using your Nature = EVERYthing, def.?
 
2012-12-08 07:56:23 AM

RedVentrue: I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)


3.bp.blogspot.com

lulz, who would be dumb enough to make this mistake? that would require a special kind of weapons-grade stupidity

and a whole lot o butthurt...

well luckily i don't have to worry about such nonsense, cause i already know there is no god, because i'm an asshole, let the muggles go chase their unicorns and invisible dragons
 
2012-12-08 08:30:20 AM
[shamelessly ganks neato picture]
 
Displayed 44 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report