Curse

MSecorsky · Aug 31, 2005, 07:56 PM // 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alura Pyro

for you evolutionist can anyone quote the second law of thermodynamics for me.....

Sure... energy will always flow from regions of higher energy to regions of lower energy. Entropy is a measure of this change in energy.

2LoT refers to thermodynamically isolated systems as well, i.e. systems that are isolated from external sources of energy input.

2LoT has absolutely nothing to do with biological processes.

Next?

Edit: This is a very simplified explanation, doesn't include equations and the like.

Claire Wolf · Aug 31, 2005, 09:37 PM // 21:37

When your trying to sell something in game, then some idiot tries to sell at the trader's buying price for no absolute reason, and that item is in stock, just to annoy you.

When boy gamers say "OMG ARE YOU REALLY A GIRL !?1111one!!11"
or "Girls don't play, they only cook and clean" <~~ That really PISSES me off.

When a monk has to get off because of their mother.

When people start talking in the middle of a movie, and think its funny to throw things at the movie screen.

When idiots on the road decide to speed 50 miles over the speed limit, then try to cut infront of you. ( Actually, you could speed up and quite enjoy flicking those certain people off )

When people chew with their mouths open, letting everything fly everywhere to the point when you feel like throwing up.

PieXags · Aug 31, 2005, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress Eyahl

I think the whole point of recycling is to limit waste more than prtect the environment etc cos yes, the manufacturing of recycled products uses fuel etc. But I live 10 minutes away from our town's "Dump" and I want it to STAY ten minutes away.. not span itself to my front door. It's about being wastefull.

A pet hate of mine? People who say something that hurts your feelings, and instead of taking responsability and apologising, explain how it's YOUR own fault for letting yourself get upset.

Yeah.. cos we all wanna LET outselves get upset. Believe me, if I had enough control over it I'd use that control.
People who say that.. are just thick. Sorry.

What about people who apologize AND say that while they're sorry, it was still your fault as a whole...? There are some occasions where people DO act irrationally and just blow up for no reason, there've been times when I've said "Hey, how've you been?" And they'd start crying and shit. I don't consider that my fault.

Beta Ray Bill · Aug 31, 2005, 10:01 PM // 22:01

I don't like cake. Pie is much better.

Squizzard45 · Aug 31, 2005, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alura Pyro

for you evolutionist can anyone quote the second law of thermodynamics for me.....

things move from more orderly to less orderly
evolution is the opposite of this whice one is right???
the law or the theory ???

The 2nd law states (roughly) that systems will always tend to move from a state of higher energy to that of a lower one (i.e. entropy and the order/disorder thing).

There are myriads of examples of this, but the two most common are the refrigerator and heat engines (e.g. car engines, boat engines etc...). It places limits on the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy).

So, say you have your car engine. The total amount of energy that goes into the engine to make it move (gas, electricity) will exactly match the output of the engine (making the car drive)-this is explained by the first law. The second law imposes the conditions that there is no such "ideal" engine and that there will always be entropy there. The engine dissipates some energy from the input (i.e. the gas and electricity) into external heat. Entropy says that it went from a state of higher order (having all that energy input and whatnot) to a state of disorder (burning off the fuel and heating up the engine in the process). This is all via the 2nd law.

The second law also explains a great deal in nature, for example why trees burn. They go from a state of higher energy (order) while they are in their "tree" phase to a state of lower energy (disorder) when they become ash; this of course can only happen if the tree burns.

To sum it all up: the second law basically states that anything that has a lot of energy (either kinetic or potential) will eventually release that energy in some form, thus taking it to a lower state of energy (disorder).

Hope that answers your question. I know it can be really confusing; believe me. A couple years of this stuff at my university and I'm still struggling with all these concepts

Thanas · Aug 31, 2005, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Not by atheists. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods.

Atheism is not a religion, since religion is ussually defined with respect to a spiritual awakening. It is however a belief system. Atheism is based on faith and not in fact.

Thanas · Aug 31, 2005, 10:27 PM // 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alura Pyro

for you evolutionist can anyone quote the second law of thermodynamics for me.....

things move from more orderly to less orderly
evolution is the opposite of this whice one is right???
the law or the theory ???

Complexity does not equate to order. Complexity if anything should be associated with dissorder.

MSecorsky · Aug 31, 2005, 11:04 PM // 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanas

Atheism is not a religion, since religion is ussually defined with respect to a spiritual awakening. It is however a belief system. Atheism is based on faith and not in fact.

On the contrary, atheism is based on the absence of evidence of the existance of the supernatural, therefore by definition is not "faith based", which is belief without evidence.

Thanas · Aug 31, 2005, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Please prove to me God doesn't exist, then we'll argue whether it faith or not.

PieXags · Aug 31, 2005, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Ok religious debates (mindless banter) aren't allowed on these forums to my knowledge so lets end that crap now while we can.

Another one of my pet hates: Propel Fitness Water (from the makers of Gatorade).

It sucks, big time.

MSecorsky · Aug 31, 2005, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanas

Please prove to me God doesn't exist, then we'll argue whether it faith or not.

It is logically impossible to prove the negative. The burden of proof lies upon the assertion to the positive.

Prove any of the gods exist, I don't really care which one of the dozens in human history you choose from.

Thanas · Sep 01, 2005, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

It is logically impossible to prove the negative. The burden of proof lies upon the assertion to the positive.

Prove any of the gods exist, I don't really care which one of the dozens in human history you choose from.

There are no true negatives. Embedded within every negative is a positive. Let me re-phrase my statement.

Prove to me that the universe can be explained entirely.

I do not believe in a particular God myself. I am agnostic, formerly Roman Catholic. If I were to believe in a God I would not be able to prove or disprove her/him, since my beliefs would be based in faith.

MSecorsky · Sep 01, 2005, 01:08 AM // 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanas

There are no true negatives. Embedded within every negative is a positive. Let me re-phrase my statement.

Prove to me that the universe can be explained entirely.

I do not believe in a particular God myself. I am agnostic, formerly Roman Catholic. If I were to believe in a God I would not be able to prove or disprove her/him, since my beliefs would be based in faith.

With our current level of knowledge we can't explain the universe in it's entirety as of yet, but as time progresses our knowledge grows. This is irrelevant to proof of a supernatural deity, nor is one required to fill in the gaps in our current knowledge.

The very fact that you state that a god cannot be proven (although a god, if it really wanted to, could make its presence quite obvious...) or disproven is the very reason that religious beliefs should not be taught in the science classes. Science deals with facts/observations and does its best to explain the natural world.

Thanas · Sep 01, 2005, 01:25 AM // 01:25

In order to confirm the non existence of God you have inadvertantly utilised the method of induction. Induction allows one to come to general conclusions, whilst making use of specific cases. Induction is however flawed, since in order to acertain a definite truth, all cases past and present would need to be observed. The conclusions you have come to are based on limited experience and observation, therefore your truth is an inferred one and not absloute. Thus to believe your truth as an absolute, faith was required.

EDIT: BTW I am a Scientist. I graduated with a degree in Physics with Astrophysics.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 01, 2005, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

On the contrary, atheism is based on the absence of evidence of the existance of the supernatural, therefore by definition is not "faith based", which is belief without evidence.

Atheism is a doctrine that mandates there is no God (or equivalent deity).
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the absence of committment to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God (or equivalent deity).

What you describe is Agnotsticism, not Atheism.

Our beliefs are constructed from our experience plus our inferences from experience. The rest of personal belief comes from faith. It's not just spiritual faith but faith in the existance (or absence of) intangibles like love, karma, God, honor etc. In that respect, true atheism involves some degree of faith.

PieXags · Sep 01, 2005, 03:10 AM // 03:10

Another one of my pet hates.

People who ignore common rules such as "No religion bullshit" (phrased a little differently), and also manage to hijack a thread and post a whole page of their off-topic shit at the same time.

Honestly who gives a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO about that, back on topic if you would. Take that to PMs if you care that much about it.

Thanas · Sep 01, 2005, 08:07 AM // 08:07

Its healthy debate and for your info, I have no particular beliefs. I'm not arguing for or against a particular religion. I'm arguing semantics and logic. And Pie, we've had long debates in the past before. Please don't be a hypocrit.

SOT · Sep 01, 2005, 08:11 AM // 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

Our beliefs are constructed from our experience plus our inferences from experience. The rest of personal belief comes from faith. It's not just spiritual faith but faith in the existance (or absence of) intangibles like love, karma, God, honor etc. In that respect, true atheism involves some degree of faith.

Although I enjoyed reading that little sermon on the mountain, I have to say with all seriousness that everything you outlined is man-made in both interpretation, execution, and philosphy and, is therefore only real to people who subscribe to it. So the whole conversation has no meaning whatsoever.

That being said, people with pet moa birds annoy me, because the little bastards make that sound.

Thanas · Sep 01, 2005, 08:14 AM // 08:14

I hate mad people on public transport.

Oh and I hate public transport (but I have to use it every day).

Shadowdaemon · Sep 01, 2005, 09:41 AM // 09:41

slipknot fans, and i will still hate em when they do get out of elementary school