Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
We preach freedom of religion, but only so far. If your religion advocates slavery, or mutilation of women, or infanticide, or puts a price on Salman Rushdie's head because he has insulted it, then your religion has a feature that cannot be respected. It endangers us all.
I find it very UN-CHRISTIAN. I don't understand how they resolve their false witness with the Creator.
Let not reality intrude on the Precious Theory.
Yet. Just as there was nothing theorized about spin states when Bohr designed his hydrogen model.
I linked the source for all to see…
How many stars are there? At what point can we generalize about the energy sources of stars?
Yes.
So you admit there's nothing "hard science" quite yet about mammal-level species evolution! Yet you HOPE that there will be. The hope is fine -- just know it for what it is -- hope and not reality.
Quoting out of context to "prove" someone said the opposite of what they really said is a lie. It took me thirty second to find out that the quote was an out of context lie.
It is not a mistake. It is a lie. A pure, premeditated, deliberate falsehood.
Maxwell'w demon was supposed to decrease entropy, not increase it. (Increasing it is trivially easy. Do some work.) It turned out upon closer examination it could only do so by increasing its own entropy to the meltdown point.
..."but you realized that NO life in any form existed until only a billion years ago."
You, sir or madame, are exploding your cover as you speak. Fossilized microorganisms from 3.5 billion years ago are well established.
If you had intended for people to see the entire quotation in context you would not have snipped out a piece that appears to be the opposite of the author's intentions.
If you were a truthful person you and your cohorts would not have mischaracterized the author's intentions.
If you were a truthful person you would have exposed the lie yourself, rather than reinforce it.
Innocent mistakes get corrected.
False creationist quotes never get corrected.
Therefore, creationist quotes are not innocent mistakes.
Almost none of you people ever correct yourselves or apologize. For most of you, it's never, as in never ever. You brazen, or play dumb, or just "Well, how about THIS then" into a new subject.
And we're not supposed to notice what's going on?
But type the words "Lying for the Lord" and watch them screech and pelt you with dung.
You are right about the the demon decreasing entropy. I was caught in a mental misfire due to superposition of "entropys" I was thinking information (CE Shannon type bits) entropy, and while dealing with the question which was about thermodynamic entropy -- where the higher energy group bottled in one room will flow over to the lower energy group in the other room through the Hall of the Demon.
Personally it seems to me in social situtations that the flow goes the other way -- maybe we all have a bit of Maxwell's Demon in us.
I do occasionally think of that scene from "2001" ...
The thing you two share might be viral. Whatever, it doesn;t accord truth much, and human mercy less.
Look, I linked to Internet Infidels - a Darwin friendly forum. I did this intentionally so it would not be disregarded immediately as propaganda and I said, “this is all I could find”, followed by , “FWIW”. Now other things were said by Dennett that I can bring to light – or Dawkins, or Scott... etc… You are welcome to call my bluff.
I bet you dream you are HAL, eh?
If the demon is allowed to use magic, it can really violate the Second Law. But that amounts to giving the demon a demon. If you make it use physical principles to detect molecules and manipulate the trap door, the Second Law is preserved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.