Support NeoGAF

[evilive7]

I worked across the hall from a young lady that thought dinosaurs werent real.

 

[Mengy]

When everything around us stops behaving like one, then I'll stop.

O_O


Um...yeah, okay. I give up. This is like trying to convince a brick wall that the planet is round. Futile, and utterly pointless.


I'll stop trying to help you now Sanky. Good luck with your interpretation of thermodynamics. If you ever want to learn something new try reading some books about physics and the laws of thermodynamics, and then read them again. Maybe you will someday understand what I have been trying to tell you. If not, well it really doesn't matter.





I think I'll lock myself in a room tonight and build a house of cards...

 

[Sanky Panky]

What about inorganic life?

There is no such thing?

I can give you an infinite supply of food, you'll still die (don't even need any close to infinite but whatevs). S'up with that?

Because the machine that processed the food becomes less and less efficient with time?

I dunno man, your argument seems very familiar to... something. What was it again...
.

What are you implying here, I don't get it.

Then why include death in the definition of life? Things tend not to last forever, whether they're alive or not.

Because a living working system has to be finite. We have water constantly absorbing heat, and releasing it. It will do this forever, increasing entropy at each step. There is no life in that process.

I'll stop trying to help you now Sanky. Good luck with your interpretation of thermodynamics. If you ever want to learn something new try reading some books about physics and the laws of thermodynamics, and then read them again. Maybe you will someday understand what I have been trying to tell you. If not, well it really doesn't matter.
]

I can't blame you if you can't look past the mathematical definition of thermodynamics (I assume it is what you were tested on), and for being close-minded as to how it applies to living organisms in the natural world. Good luck to you too.

 

[KtSlime]

If you don't mind my asking, Sanky Panky, what line of work are you in?

 

[Orayn]

I think we need a "Sanky Panky |OT| of WTF am I reading?" so he can summarize some of his views on life, the universe, and everything. It'd be an interesting read, to say the least.

 

[equap]

I think we need a "Sanky Panky |OT| of WTF am I reading?" so he can summarize some of his views on life, the universe, and everything. It'd be an interesting read, to say the least.

you must be really bored or have nothing going on in your life.

sad.

 

[Mengy]

I think we need a "Sanky Panky |OT| of WTF am I reading?" so he can summarize some of his views on life, the universe, and everything. It'd be an interesting read, to say the least.

It would be creative, for sure!

I can't blame you if you can't look past the mathematical definition of thermodynamics (I assume it is what you were tested on), and for being close-minded as to how it applies to living organisms in the natural world. Good luck to you too.

It's not a question of mathematics, it's a question of understanding what the actual laws are and how to apply them. Which you, apparently, can't do, even when told about your errors in using them.

 

[Sanky Panky]

If you don't mind my asking, Sanky Panky, what line of work are you in?

I work in Finance! I almost did change my major in college to Mechanical Engineering. I love this stuff and have read it for years.

It's not a question of mathematics, it's a question of understanding what the actual laws are and how to apply them. Which you, apparently, can't do, even when told about your errors in using them.

Once again, I can't blame you if you can't look past your theoretical textbook knowledge of thermodynamics. So far I have been very clear how heat flow laws are applied in nature, and everything we see around us. I don't rely on theoreticals.

 

[Fenderputty]

you must be really bored or have nothing going on in your life.

sad.

Why would you say this?

 

[Orayn]

Because reading weird stuff is indeed my hobby and it's lame as hell.

 

[Mengy]

Once again, I can't blame you if you can't look past your theoretical textbook knowledge of thermodynamics. So far I have been very clear how heat flow laws are applied in nature, and everything we see around us. I don't rely on theoreticals.

My knowledge isn't theoretical, I use it almost every day. I've been trained on how to use it. You don't rely on theoreticals? You don't even rely on the actual laws themselves, and the only thing you are clear on is your mis-understanding of what you are talking about.


So, you say that the Earth is a closed thermodynamic system?

By definition, in a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The amount of matter remains constant, but heat and work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system.

So tell me Spanky, how many asteroids and meteors have hit the Earth in the past? Would you say that an asteroid is made of matter? And if you agree on that, then since said asteroids collided with the Earth from outside it's boundaries, HOW IS THAT A CLOSED SYSTEM???


And that's only one example. Books have been written filled with reasons why the Earth is not a closed system...you should try reading one or two.

 

[Sanky Panky]

So tell me Spanky, how many asteroids and meteors have hit the Earth in the past? Would you say that an asteroid is made of matter? And if you agree on that, then since said asteroids collided with the Earth from outside it's boundaries, HOW IS THAT A CLOSED SYSTEM???
.

Plenty of meteors and asteroids come in all the time! but you tell me this... every time matter comes in, does that energy (matter) accumulate inside our atmospehere or does it dissipate in time, bringing back the planet's temperature to stable levels? As a closed system, heat is exchanged accross the boundary of the system. The matter (energy) that comes in, does not stay in, hence we can determine how entropy increases in everything we see. The energy is not trapped into the system (even if there is a temporary shock). Over time, and for the purpose of life, we can evaluate what happens to living things when there is a constant level of energy available for all.

 

[Orayn]

Plenty of meteors and asteroids come in all the time! but you tell me this... every time matter comes in, does that energy (matter) accumulate inside our atmospehere or does it dissipate in time, bringing back the planet's temperature to stable levels? As a closed system, heat is exchanged accross the boundary of the system. The matter (energy) that comes in, does not stay in, hence we can determine how entropy increases in everything we see. The energy is not trapped into the system (even if there is a temporary shock). Over time, and for the purpose of life, we can evaluate what happens to living things when there is a constant level of energy available for all.

You're treating energy and matter as equivalent in a context where they are not. You're wrong.

 

[Sanky Panky]

You're treating energy and matter as equivalent in a context where they are not. You're wrong.

Matter is energy and energy is matter. What context do you think matter is used when discussing thermodynamics?

 

[Orayn]

Matter is energy and energy is matter. What context do you think matter is used when discussing thermodynamics?

That only holds if there's some meaningful way to convert between the two in the system we're referencing, like a certain volume of gasoline getting you a certain amount of thermal energy when combusted in an engine. What, Sanky, is eating our space dust?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I have no problem with somebody attempting to go beyond the established theoretical framework if you have the knowledge to back up such attempts, but when you alter basic definitions of things in order to suit your point and then call the people who actually do/use the things that you're talking about textbook thinkers, you're essentially walling off all debate. "Closed system" and "open system" have very clear definitions, and whether or not something "behaves like a closed system" under your wonky definition of such things doesn't really matter. Under your loose interpretation of "closed system," the entire UNIVERSE becomes basically a closed system, making the whole idea of an open system pretty unnecessary. You don't see how you're essentially creating an inarguable position, thereby making what you are doing thoroughly unscientific, not to mention dialectically silly?

 

[danwarb]

Because a living working system has to be finite. We have water constantly absorbing heat, and releasing it. It will do this forever, increasing entropy at each step. There is no life in that process.

If you wait long enough it seems everything decays. Death is a good way to curtail the reproduction of organisms less suited to not being dead before they can reproduce. It's important for the evolution of complex organisms but it's not really unique to life.

Stars die. Ours had grandparents.

 

[Sanky Panky]

That only holds if there's some meaningful way to convert between the two in the system we're referencing, like a certain volume of gasoline getting you a certain amount of thermal energy when combusted in an engine. What, Sanky, is eating our space dust?

The mass and the velocity of a meteorite create kinetic energy that is released with impact. Of course, you will still always have some potential energy between the molecules stuck together in your space dust, but it's negligible in the context of the Earth. there is no net change in energy of the Earth, unless we are talking about a massive meteor. Even then, the some clears, and temps go back to normal eventually.

I have no problem with somebody attempting to go beyond the established theoretical framework if you have the knowledge to back up such attempts, but when you alter basic definitions of things in order to suit your point and then call the people who actually do/use the things that you're talking about textbook thinkers, you're essentially walling off all debate. "Closed system" and "open system" have very clear definitions, and whether or not something "behaves like a closed system" under your wonky definition of such things doesn't really matter. Under your loose interpretation of "closed system," the entire UNIVERSE becomes basically a closed system, making the whole idea of an open system pretty unnecessary. You don't see how you're essentially creating an inarguable position, thereby making what you are doing thoroughly unscientific, not to mention dialectically silly?

It is ALL that matters because we are trying to explain behaviors of things within the system. We can cry open system all day, but if it behaves like a closed system, and we think about how things behave within this system, then it is silly NOT to think in those terms. For all the crying in open systems, you guys have not detailed ONE instance where entropy decreases naturally. It's because there is none without entropy increasing overall. And YES the Universe as a whole is a closed system, unless you want to argue that matter comes in and out of it.

If you wait long enough it seems everything decays. Death is a good way to curtail the reproduction of organisms less suited to not being dead before they can reproduce. It's important for the evolution of complex organisms, but it's not really unique to life.

I don't think that anyone has ever classified a star as a living organism, and no one would argue for it. It's a giant ball of gas, that eventually runs out. Death in this case is pure semantics.

 

[danwarb]

All of that space dust remains though. And it's hardly negligible in the context of the Earth because the whole planet is made of the stuff.

 

[Gorgon]

Sanky will not learn, he is not worth the time to correct and we all need to just leave the thread.

I'm following your advice.

I'd like to thank Sanky before I go for showing us that the secret of immortality is to have enough money to keep buying and eating sandwishes for all eternity. As long as you put energy into dat system of yours, there's no senescense.

Thank you for the Circus of Stupid.

 

[Sanky Panky]

All of that space dust remains though. And it's hardly negligible in the context of the Earth because the whole planet is made of the stuff.

And how many layers are added by each impact? Exactly. The majority of the energy entering earth is from kinetic energy, and it gets dispersed.

I'd like to thank Sanky before I go for showing us that the secret of immortality is to have enough money to keep buying and eating sandwishes for all eternity. As long as you put energy into dat system of yours, there's no senescense.

Thank you for the Circus of Stupid.

Yeah that WOULD be a stupid conclusion. Are you taking credit for that one? It's not at all what I have said.

 

[Gorgon]

I work in Finance! I almost did change my major in college to Mechanical Engineering. I love this stuff and have read it for years.

Fortunately for you. If you worked in science you'd be out of a job.

Because the machine that processed the food becomes less and less efficient with time?

You're misaplying the concept of efficiency. In this case a loss of efficiency would be the loss of capacity to take energy and use it for work (because you're tying senescense to lack of energy). You could overcome that by feeding more energy. If that would be the case all you'd need to do was to keep feeding the system because it's open. Eat sandwiches and live forever.

Once again, I can't blame you if you can't look past your theoretical textbook knowledge of thermodynamics. So far I have been very clear how heat flow laws are applied in nature, and everything we see around us. I don't rely on theoreticals.

Wow. This dud(e) is a genius. Can't wait for the Nobel.

Bye.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I haven't followed the "discussion" (and that goes both ways!) up till here, but:

Matter is energy and energy is matter. What context do you think matter is used when discussing thermodynamics?

Fotons and some type of neutrino's have zero mass. E= MC^2 is a shortened version of the full formula, which doesn't equate energy with mass.

So your statement is indeed WRONG, by definition of Einstein's theory, which is the one you are using.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Fortunately for you. If you worked in science you'd be out of a job.

I'd actually be the open minded one, looking critically at the misconceptions spread around about basic nature. It's a highly desirable trait.

You're misaplying the concept of efficiency. In this case a loss of efficiency would be the loss of capacity to take energy and use it for work (because you're tying senescense to lack of energy). You could overcome that by feeding more energy. If that would be the case all you'd need to do was to keep feeding the system because it's open. Eat sandwiches and live forever.
.

You could extend that by applying specific energy, just like how you detail your car so it doesn't get rusty; just how the builder takes care of the house of cards. My argument has always been that there is nothing in nature to take care of the builder. Heat and energy are not smart that way.

Fotons and some type of neutrino's have zero mass. E= MC^2 is a shortened version of the full formula, which doesn't equate energy with mass.

I'll quote Wiki...

All evidence suggests that, contrary to the predictions of the Standard Model, neutrinos have mass and that their mass is tiny even by the standards of subatomic particles, but the amount of mass has never been measured accurately.

And if you mean photons, they carry electromagnetic radiation that can be expressed in heat. Subparticles still abide by the natural laws.

Moreover, if you are arguing that matter could exist without energy, I would love to hear about it.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

"Theists" aren't trying to see how life got here. They accept whatever they believe & most of us fit this belief within the context of what science finds out. It's just like science does with abiogenesis. It's a belief for sure although I would never go so far as to call it a religious one.

I may have mistated if I said science has no business trying to find out how life got here. They will and they can't help it and, who knows, maybe there is a slight chance they're right. I'm not that hung up on that. I'm pretty sure my statements have made it clear that it's a pointless endeavor for them. My point was trying to guestimate about how life got here is not science, but maybe it will turn into it just like realizing God exists will automatically turn him into a scientific discussion.

As it stands, the only thing it has in common with science is that a scientist believes it over God and has the ability to convert non-scientists into accepting it too.

I'm all for them trying to create life though, so if trying to find life's origins in absence of God spurs that activity on, then more power to them.

Isn't stating a god did it the same as figuring it out...or like i aaid, making shit up because they don't know?

 

[Raist]

I think we should call it "Einstein's theory of identity" now.

Also, Newtonian physics is good enough and everything obeys that law.

And isolated and closed systems are exactly the same. Oh and the concept of open system is unnecessary because it doesn't exist.

We're on the verge of revolutionizing biology and physics. I'm gonna write a cover letter to Nature while Sanky writes the article up.

 

[Oppo]

Just make sure the OP's girlfriend gets a copy.

 

[Dilly]

I think we should call it "Einstein's theory of identity" now.

Also, Newtonian physics is good enough and everything obeys that law.

And isolated and closed systems are exactly the same. Oh and the concept of open system is unnecessary because it doesn't exist.

We're on the verge of revolutionizing biology and physics. I'm gonna write a cover letter to Nature while Sanky writes the article up.

But, he is open minded man!

 

[JGS]

Isn't stating a god did it the same as figuring it out...or like i aaid, making shit up because they don't know?

If all you're going to do is simplify it down to that, which is lazy, then it's not anymore irrational than saying chance did it- making stuff up. No matter how complicated the idea is, it's all you've got with with the "scientific" origin of life. Again, they are at best equal with creation winning the logical aspect by scientific standards since that's been proven over and over again.

So if we are going by current possibilities, one wins by a country mile. However, nothing can prove the history of life starting. Wanted to get that out of the way before this turns into THAT kind of debate.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

If all you're going to do is simplify it down to that, which is lazy, then it's not anymore irrational than saying chance did it- making stuff up. No matter how complicated the idea is, it's all you've got with with the "scientific" origin of life. Again, they are at best equal with creation winning the logical aspect by scientific standards since that's been proven over and over again.

So if we are going by current possibilities, one wins by a country mile. However, nothing can prove the history of life starting. Wanted to get that out of the way before this turns into THAT kind of debate.

Ahahahahaha how did you reach that conclusion? Im quite impressed though JGS, it's not often that we get more than one logical fallacy in the one sentence. Have a look at the meaning of an 'argument from ignorance' and a 'false dichotomy'.

 

[The Janitor]

Faithers gonna faith

 

[Raist]

Creation wins the logical aspect? Wut?

 

[Subprime]

Wait, how did this get onto the topic of closed systems and thermodynamic laws.

 

[Raist]

Wait, how did this get onto the topic of closed systems and thermodynamic laws.

The 2nd law governs everything, so we came to the conclusion that it applies to relationships.
OP might need some heat transfer between his system and his gf's.

 

[GraveHorizon]

So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old... |OT| Entropy increases

Spoiler

I'm not smart enough to understand what entropy means.

On the original subject of the girlfriend, you should show her this thread.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If all you're going to do is simplify it down to that, which is lazy, then it's not anymore irrational than saying chance did it- making stuff up. No matter how complicated the idea is, it's all you've got with with the "scientific" origin of life. Again, they are at best equal with creation winning the logical aspect by scientific standards since that's been proven over and over again.

So if we are going by current possibilities, one wins by a country mile. However, nothing can prove the history of life starting. Wanted to get that out of the way before this turns into THAT kind of debate.

Or the history of planet formation

Or the existence of a solid iron core at the center of the earth

Or the existence of Neutron stars

Or the existence of Black Holes

Or the process of Nuclear fusion

What else can we apply your logic to?

 

[JGS]

Or the history of planet formation

Or the existence of a solid iron core at the center of the earth

Or the existence of Neutron stars

Or the existence of Black Holes

Or the process of Nuclear fusion

What else can we apply your logic to?

This has nothing to do with the post or the initial debate. in fact, I'm not even sure of what you're trying to say.

Creation wins the logical aspect? Wut?

Over abiogenesis? Most definitely.

 

[Dahellisdat]

This has nothing to do with the post or the initial debate. in fact, I'm not even sure of what you're trying to say.Over abiogenesis? Most definitely.

hahaha what????? How does this made up story of creation hold more merit than the scientific explanation for the creation of life? And yes there does exist an explanation for how the primordial conditions on earth could have lead to such a thing.

 

[Raist]

Over abiogenesis? Most definitely.

Not quite sure how an invisible omnipotent superbeing creating stuff out of nothing makes more sense than the current hypothesis, of which parts can be demonstrated in a lab and the whole makes perfects sense in regards to probabilities and chemical/physical laws, but OK.

 

[Mengy]

Over abiogenesis? Most definitely.

I have no problem with people believing in different things. We are all individuals and free to follow whatever faith we want to. But anyone who says that creation is the more logical probability over abiogenesis, or even that creation has more evidence to support it, well anyone who proclaims that is either:

1. ignorant of the actual data and evidence to support both of those
2. has their head way down in the sand

Ignoring evidence because you don't want to is one thing. Proclaiming false evidence or making shit up, that's another thing entirely.

 

[neenja_jenkins]

TLDR: I don't get blind faith, learning is super awesome.

It's a tough situation man. I was raised SUPER religious as well, and for a long time, believed many of the things your GF does. My church didn't brainwash me (like your GF's did), but it was a very small town, out in the middle of nowhere, and you just believed. It's almost something you can't describe to anyone other then someone who's lived it. I used to be the same way. I threw away friendships like they were nothing if they questioned my faith or beliefs. Now, looking back I've made a friend who is EXACTLY how I used to be, and it's shown me just how naive I was.

For me though, all their reluctance to look at any other possibility made me more curious. Eventually we moved away from that little piece of hell, and I was able to grow up, express my doubts, and realize that I can come to my own conclusion. My parent's don't like it, but it's my choice.

I'm a bit of a scientist myself, and I, like you, like some kinds of facts to back up my data. My love of astronomy, chemistry and biology can't help but make you question everything I've believed all my life. You just have to realize, you've been led to look to facts your whole life, and she's been conditioned to look to faith. She obviously believes in her "facts" as steadfast as you do.

I don't buy the young earth stuff, but I will say that Science is "wrong" all the time. Like you say, there are new discoveries all the time, and tomorrow there could be one to make us lol at other ones. We know very little about the cosmos, and honestly we think we know a lot more than we really do. Physics too. And Quantum mechanics!? Gawd, nothing makes me more excited for science the QM. We are pretty sure we have a fairly strong grasp of a certain percentage of so many things, but there are just too many things we don't know.

I still struggle with these questions every day.

TLR Shit's weird yo.

Keep pressing on man. Hopefully, your GF will open and her eyes, and realize that to make a honest and educated decision, you have to at least consider any and all possibilities.

 

[Peasant Princess-King]

Well, you just have to ask yourself if it is worth it.

I mean, if you're looking at a long-term relationship with such opposing opinions (especially about religious beliefs) what will that mean for your future?

If/when you get married, she will probably want to be married under her church. Does this raise any conflicts or red flags in your mind or are you willing to do that for her? I know it has only been a year and these are some serious relationship questions, but she or even you have probably thought about it at some point so far...

What will happen if/when you have children? You would probably want your children to discover the world with an open mind and she will probably want to bring them up under her beliefs. Does this come up as a serious conflict to you? If you think about it now, you will know how far you will realistically want to take this relationship... unless neither you or her will EVER want to get married or have children. :/

TBH, most relationships with opposing religious views almost always never work out, but if you both are willing you to accept the other and communicate about your plans for the future, you have a slim chance.

 

[Orayn]

It's a tough situation man. I was raised SUPER religious as well, and for a long time, believed many of the things your GF does. My church didn't brainwash me (like your GF's did), but it was a very small town, out in the middle of nowhere, and you just believed. It's almost something you can't describe to anyone other then someone who's lived it. I used to be the same way. I threw away friendships like they were nothing if they questioned my faith or beliefs. Now, looking back I've made a friend who is EXACTLY how I used to be, and it's shown me just how naive I was.

For me though, all their reluctance to look at any other possibility made me more curious. Eventually we moved away from that little piece of hell, and I was able to grow up, express my doubts, and realize that I can come to my own conclusion. My parent's don't like it, but it's my choice.

I'm a bit of a scientist myself, and I, like you, like some kinds of facts to back up my data. My love of astronomy, chemistry and biology can't help but make you question everything I've believed all my life. You just have to realize, you've been led to look to facts your whole life, and she's been conditioned to look to faith. She obviously believes in her "facts" as steadfast as you do.

I don't buy the young earth stuff, but I will say that Science is "wrong" all the time. Like you say, there are new discoveries all the time, and tomorrow there could be one to make us lol at other ones. We know very little about the cosmos, and honestly we think we know a lot more than we really do. Physics too. And Quantum mechanics!? Gawd, nothing makes me more excited for science the QM. We are pretty sure we have a fairly strong grasp of a certain percentage of so many things, but there are just too many things we don't know.

I still struggle with these questions every day.

TLR Shit's weird yo.

Keep pressing on man. Hopefully, your GF will open and her eyes, and realize that to make a honest and educated decision, you have to at least consider any and all possibilities.

Very good post.

Drive home the point that it doesn't need to be an all or nothing mentality of us versus them. Plenty of religious people can be non-hostile toward science, and the important part is getting your foot in the door, so to speak.

 

[Darksol]

How about an update Mengy? Are you two still together? Have either of your positions changed? Is this still an area of conflict?

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Whoa, blast from the past.

 

[Imtey]

you could have just PMed him instead of bumping this...

 

[Darksol]

you could have just PMed him instead of bumping this...

This thread is worth bumping.

 

[Bisnic]

And here I thought it was the same thread made sooner, but with a twist and new thread title to go with it : The mom was actually the girlfriend!

 

[Mengy]

How about an update Mengy? Are you two still together? Have either of your positions changed? Is this still an area of conflict?

Hah, yep we are still together and very happy! The debate still comes up from time to time, always ends up the same with neither of us budging.

The upcoming movie Noah with Russel Crowe has her all upset because it's "different" than what her church teaches. I'll probably love it, lol.

 

[Pro]

Hah, yep we are still together and very happy! The debate still comes up from time to time, always ends up the same with neither of us budging.

The upcoming movie Noah with Russel Crowe has her all upset because it's "different" than what her church teaches. I'll probably love it, lol.

I'm curious myself to see how "accurate" that movie is. They rarely ever are. But it will have some neat visuals and it has Emma Watson...