Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is there a third law?

One can never the THIRD LAW OF PHYSICS.
And that is
"AFTER YOU SQUEEZE YOUR CHEEKS TOGETHER BE SURE YOU ARE CLOSE TO THE CRAPPER".
Alfred E Newman

The second law was discovered and verified in this "open system". The entire universe is subject to the Second Law. There is the concept call the ultimate heat death.

n thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged. According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy.

Notice, that nothing in the above implies you cannot have pockets of increasing order, as the entire system moves toward a state a maximum disorder......that state you referred to as ultimate heat death.

What would a caveman or neanderthal think of a piece of modern technology? Magic

I said molecules, not elements. What are the odds of a single gene floating around out there? How about the odds of thousands of genes coming together in a useful sequence. How about the thousands of other structures in a cell like mitochondria, etc? Every time you add something that's essential to life, the odds of it happening drop dramatically.

It seems as if nobody wants to tackle this very fundamental question. It is somewhat difficult to talk about something when you don't know what it is.

Kinda like art, yet people talk about art all the time.

Steve.

In order to evaluate your hypothesis, someone needs to check into this supposition. Maybe you can provide a source. Who are these people, and what are their methodologies?

Seriously though, it's always fascinating when people try to prove the existence of God using man's understanding of the universe.

What's even worse is when people try reject the existence of an Infinite God using man's finite understanding of the universe and prefer nothing as the creator.

No, it's not worse Ringman, it's the same thing.

I'm not sure who your post is directed at though. I don't doubt the existence of God, and never said I did.

One thing I'm certain of though. The best and brightest physicists in the world cannot "prove" His existence, one way or the other.

Much less the arm-chair variety of physicist.

To think otherwise is the ultimate example of hubris.

Apple and oranges. Not the same at all. If we are to discuss what started life, we must know exactly what life is. Art is an abstraction based in our imagination and has no precise definition that we can use to determine exactly what is and what is not art.

We can discuss how beautiful or ugly something living is or some piece of art is without knowing exactly the definitions of life or art, but to discuss when and how life starts you need to know what life is so you will know when you reach that boundary between life and nonlife.

I'll grant you that life and art are not the same. That's easy. But you grant me this -- I'm only saying that in both cases we talk about what we can't define. I was merely commenting on your statement, "It is somewhat difficult to talk about something when you don't know what it is." True of life. True of art.

I just recently had a lengthy discussion with my nephew who has the highest art degree he can get from the most prestigious art school in the nation, and he admits art can't be defined. If we can't adequately define what we can create, can we expect to fully define what we can't create?

In light of that, it's strange that the boundary you talk about -- between life and non-life -- is actually pretty clear. We know life when we see life.

Steve.

Don't know. Recently, I've been hearing that space and time are indeed finite.

Given geologic time though, I think nature as had opportunity to experiment with near unlimited permutations and combinations of materials. When compared with a few thousand researchers working since the 50's, man has only been at work for a second or two.

I do believe time is finite.

Wondering: If we actually knew time is finite, how many questions would that answer?

Steve.

You are granting time intelegence. Time is a measure of passing. It has no intelegence and can not combine anything.

Then you have to rely on chance. You want us to think stupid, dumb, blind, dead chance can produce what etremely intelegent, educated humans can't? If you had a trillion years squared amount of time chance could not come up with even one living cell. Check with someoone who has done extensive experiments in probablities and you will get quite a shock.

How old is the earth in this measure of passing you call time?

Not much, because it took nature over 250 million years to bring forth the first simple, single cellular, creatures that could be classified as living.

Untrue. Creationists misunderstand the Second Law if they believe that it's incompatible with evolution. Your understanding of it fails to take into account an exterior source of energy, i.e., the sun, which is a manifestation of the residual energy left from the Big Bang. While, as a whole, energy is decaying in the universe, the earth has been receiving a steady input of energy from the start, i.e., the earth is not an isolated system. The only difference in science between a law and a theory is that a law explains what will happen given X, while a theory explains the mechanism behind what happens in the presence of X. One isn't of superior rank to the other.

It's not about preference, it's about evidence.

antelope_sniper



You and I looked at the evidence and came to opposite conclusions. It's not about evidence. It about world view. One's world view is not tested by science or life's experiences. It is what we use to interpret evidence and experiences.