Best Colorado Ski Investments

misunderstandings about the second law of thermodynamics

idiocies One of the most popular among the growth of Yahoo shareholders .. Answer to the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.

With Ike in the head is made to extensive use of the usual uninformed armchair that stuff themselves by Harun Yahya ( crapped widely from those who know more di me) per provare a smentire la teoria dell'evoluzione.

Ne avevo già parlato, qui , ma oggi volevo specificare ancora un paio di cose:

Il secondo principio della Termodinamica si applica, appunto, ad un sistema termico. In poche parole ogni macchina termica deve perdere una parte di energia sotto forma di calore. Per questo non è possibile creare una macchina con rendimento termico pari ad 1, ovvero il moto perpetuo.

Siccome chi basa le proprie convinzioni su un Sacro Libbbbro è abituato ad interpretare ogni cosa (altrimenti cadrebbe the stage, given the gross errors) you are allowed to do with the law of entropy.

They said: Since a system must, of necessity, to lose this energy must be applied to everything from elementary particles, the stones, to living beings. So the theory of evolution that leads to rather different organisms but not simpler (they would say "better" but I want to give them an edge in terminology) violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

course, this conjecture is essentially correct, because everything that makes up the mass is composed of particles, however, subject to entropy, only that nothing prevents an orderly arrangement as you approach the final entropy, heat death.

the organizational systems in complex I gave a small example here, so do not come back on the theory of Chaos. I will explain, however, that certain things should not be confused and used at random:

is not the fault of the second principle

of thermodynamics

A car left in the desert (I borrow the example of the idiot above) does not stop working because it has increased its entropy, but because actions have affected active erosion, as the oxidation of iron the sheet, the disintegration of the fibers that make up the canvas of the air space of the evaporation of waste tires, fuel and water etc., mainly data from the erosive action of the air (not to mention the rain, wind , micro-organisms that feed on plastic fibers).

If you want to power thermal system to compare a car should talk about the operation of its engine, se ha benzina (energia) questa funziona, e se funziona DEVE perdere energia, quindi prima o poi si fermerà.

I sistemi come la nostra automobile possono essere paragonati, dato l'effetto finale, all'aumento di entropia ma sono sostanzialmente tutt'altro, il secondo principio della termodinamica è più sottile .

Nella teoria dell'evoluzione si prende in esame un sistema aperto, il pianeta terra, che riceve energia costante e abbondante dal Sole ma questo è già stato specificato più volte (nell'ottimo blog di Trottolone , per esempio) io voglio andare più in profondità:

Il buon Ike, in his "display of ID-IOZIA compared in 20 points" (citation needed ) notes that the universe, by definition, is a closed and isolated. Of course it is correct, and not because they have said Ike, but because it was shown that, as a whole is not possible to occur outside influences (the first law of thermodynamics: if the energy is not created nor destroyed means that there is something elsewhere, so you can not influence, even slightly, or be observed by our universe at least).

But the universe is expanding (Hubble's law ) then the system universe is not still tending to disorder of the second principle, sooner or later there will be (the estimate is about 500miliardi of years) but in the meantime can happen interesting "variations on the theme" :

a supernova responsible for the "creation" of heavy metals

So we fall into the trap (accidentally tense, of course) creationists confuse "entropy" with "corrosion".

Astaroth, August 24 2010

Add the link posted by Ryo (the next time also change the post to put the link, or to correct, and likely, crap ...)

http://riflessionisullafede. wordpress.com/2010/01/16/levoluzione-non-viola-la-seconda-legge-della-termodinamica /

http://it.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100510064025AAMHaMr

http://www.cronachelaiche.it/2010/02/lezione-di-termodinamica-per-creazionisti/

Stream Free Family Guy Simpsons American Dad

But who's there? God, believers or atheists?

One of the "smash" the debate between believers and atheists, carried out by men "of faith "is the second which in reality atheists "pure" does not exist.
Atheism is a kind of stubbornness does not correspond to the true thoughts of those who professed atheist.
This is because, they say, to believe in something supernatural would be a "need of the human soul," or because "believing in God is so obvious that to deny it is not rational."

overlook the fact that the existence of God is so "obvious" that no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (to this end I invite you to visit my blog on presented evidence to that effect), the point that is, if you think about it, those who really do not exist and behave completely opposite to what sostengono con grande veemenza, sono proprio i credenti.

Ebbene sì.

I CREDENTI NON ESISTONO.

E lo dimostrerò con due argomentazioni una gentile e l'altra un po' meno.


Argomentazione 1

Se io credo che esiste davvero un Dio il quale:

1- mi ha detto cosa è giusto fare e cosa non è giusto fare;
2- mi osserva in ogni istante della mia giornata e non posso sfuggire nè al suo controllo, nè al suo giudizio;
3- ha il potere di togliermi la vita in qualsiasi istante e nei modi più svariati ed imprevedibili;
4- mi ha avvisato che, se nell'attimo della morte mi becca dopo che io ho violato una sola delle sue indicazioni, I will suffer forever in ways so horrible that you can not even imagine them;



So I'm really an idiot patented if it violates one of its indications.
Or deep down I do not.

The counter-argument is generally based on the principle that "sin is inherent in the human soul."
Well ... it does not. It is not a sin to be inherent in the human, but the temptation of it. But man, although subject to the temptation always has the option not to fall into sin and flee. In fact, if you do not have a choice, there is no sin.
sin is realized only when, they can avoid it, the believer, however, makes the act contrary to the will of God

Now, if you know that after death God does not give any possibility of repentance, liquids with a "you should've thought before" (ask about IKE "Clara and Annetta"), explain to me why, intentionally, do you have sex outside of marriage, tell lies, do not go to church, you want the stuff and the other woman, etc.. etc. ..?

There are only two: either you're the greatest unconscious of history, or do not really believe it. Nor punishments, nor to the commandments, and then not even God

And since not print talking about a few individuals (if so we could also hypothesize l'incosciennza) ma della TOTALITA' dei credenti, dato che non esiste uomo che non pecca, l'unica ipotesi davvero plausibile è che nessuno crede davvero in Dio.

L'altra argomentazione è più cruda.
Mi permetto di utilizzarla solo perchè è un'esperienza che ho vissuto in prima persona all'interno della mia famiglia.

La morte di un bambino.

Nessuna esperienza strazia gli animi di una famiglia quanto la morte di un bambino.
L'immagine di una madre, di un padre, di un qualsiasi familiare o anche un semplice conoscente che piange alla morte di un bambino è un immagine che colpisce e turba chiunque abbia un minimo di sensibilità.
Quando morì mio fratello, molte people repeated what is common place in cases like this, "is now happy, now is in paradise now is next to God" Yet still, and I continued to cry.

But if we really believe that children die go to heaven, if you really believe that going to enjoy the eternal bliss, why are you crying?
will have to jump for joy. They have passed the "rock" of earthly life, that puts us at risk of eternal damnation and stand before God for ever

The counter-argument here is rather bland 'mourns for the temporary separation. "
But as a mother or father would cry in that way so desperate that you see in cases like this for a "temporary separation" knowing that this detachment, however, has given the eternal happiness to your son?

Here there is no alternative, because you are crying in their underwear, beyond the words spoken and heard, there is the certainty that it's over, really over.

When I see a person jumping for joy at the funeral of a child, I will not say "this is crazy," say "this is a true believer."

But so far I can say with good certainty that:

BELIEVERS DO NOT EXIST.