Irritating quotes almost always said to me by thiests in a debate

[Synapse Fire]

Feel free to add to the list:


1) "If the Universe started with the Big Bang then what existed before that?"

(my usual answer is, "I have no idea and Im not entirely certain the big bang really happened, why do you feel that you must fill in the unknown with 'God'"?)

2) "How could there possibly be any meaning/morality to your life?"

(for people who need a supreme power to give them meaning and morality they sure are high and mighty about it!)

3)incredulously, "How could you not believe in God?!"

(my standard retort, "The same reason that you dont believe in Zeus, its made up.")

4) My Favorite (as asked to me by a born-again fundie red-neck that was really ticking me off): "What do you have against Jesus?"

I answered, "He was a Jew"*












*before anyone gets upset I only answered this way because the idiot who asked me held quite alot of anti-semetic opinions and wasnt shy about expressing them. The retort did seem to make him pause for a few moments of reflection.

[Mosquito]

5) "If you're not baptised, how can you have a name?"
From my time as a child talking with other children, but still.

Mosquito

[thatguywhojuggles]

I was home visiting my parents one year for Christmas. I had gone out to visit with an old friend and we went to a bar to have a beer. The next day I was talking to my parents, and my sister and her husband and kids were there too. I causally mentioned going to have a beer at some point in the conversation.

Later that evening, my neice, who was probably around 10 years old, came up to me and said, "I can't believe you told Grandma that you drank beer!"

I said to her, "There is nothing wrong with drinking a beer. In fact Jesus used to drink wine."

She looked confused for a moment, like "something does not computer" then turned to look at me, smiled, and said, "Maybe it was non-alcoholic wine."

I just laughed.

[Synapse Fire]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I was home visiting my parents one year for Christmas. I had gone out to visit with an old friend and we went to a bar to have a beer. The next day I was talking to my parents, and my sister and her husband and kids were there too. I causally mentioned going to have a beer at some point in the conversation.

Later that evening, my neice, who was probably around 10 years old, came up to me and said, "I can't believe you told Grandma that you drank beer!"

I said to her, "There is nothing wrong with drinking a beer. In fact Jesus used to drink wine."

She looked confused for a moment, like "something does not computer" then turned to look at me, smiled, and said, "Maybe it was non-alcoholic wine."

I just laughed.

I'm afraid that youve posted in the wrong thread, this is the irritating quotes thread, youre looking for the cute and adorable quotes thread. ;)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Synapse Fire
...
*before anyone gets upset I only answered this way because the idiot who asked me held quite alot of anti-semetic opinions and wasnt shy about expressing them. The retort did seem to make him pause for a few moments of reflection. The Jews really went down hill after Jesus, apparently.

[Yaotl]

"So what do you think happens after you die?"

How the hell should I know and why should I care? I'll be dead!

[zakur]

"You just don't understand. And I see you'll never understand."

"I'll pray for you."

"You don't know what I believe, and don't even try pretending that you do."

"Any good you do is because of God, whether you choose to believe it or not."

"God exists whether you believe in him or not."

"I don't have to prove anything."

"I just know. In my heart."

"Entropy!"

[cbish]

"Science doesn't know everything"

"Because that's the way it is" (my super mormon father-in-law)

"How do we know?" usually a response to something relating to evolution or cosmology.

"Science really is a form of faith"

"It's just a theory"

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Synapse Fire
My Favorite (as asked to me by a born-again fundie red-neck that was really ticking me off): "What do you have against Jesus?"

I answered, "He was a Jew"*


Yes, but only on his mother's side.
[with a tip of the hat to Normal Lear]

[Quinn]

"I pity you."

"How can you stand the thought of living in a cold, meaningless universe?"

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Yes, but only on his mother's side.
[with a tip of the hat to Normal Lear]

Which makes you Jewish.

[farmermike]

I remember being young and rebellious,turning my back on god rejecting him and simply wishing he didn't exist.But just like the prodigle son he welcomed me back with open arms.
Usually made by a former drug addict,criminal or someone that just thought they were real bad.

[Perpetual Notion]

"Aren't you afraid of going to Hell?"

Yes, about as much as I'm afraid of being kidnapped by elves and spending eternity in Santa's workshop listening to "Little Drummer Boy"over and over again.

Also, I got beat up once at daycare when I said I didn't believe in God or that Jesus was the son of God. Everyone said that that meant I was Jewish and so the ganged up on me and beat the cr@p out of me.

I asked my mom what we were, since I had just been informed I was Jewish and she said, "just tell them you're Christian so they'll leave you alone". So that's my story of how I went from being an atheist, to a Jew, to a Christian all within one day.

[Synapse Fire]

In the past Ive lied as to my religious beliefs for the sole reason of seeing the reaction of the person. What's weird (in regard to evangelistic christians) is that if I claim to be Jewish or Muslim or even worship the Native American gods they are almost always less apt to preach to me than if I avow my athiesism. It's as if they think they'll have a harder time convincing a faithful Jew than an a athiest.

[Z]

"Nothing positive can come from atheism!"

At least Atheists haven't started wars and slaughtered millions of folks...

Which usually leads to a reply of,

"They weren't really ___________! They were clearly atheists, 'claiming' to be _______________!"

Yeah. Sure. You keep believing that, buckwheat.

[RandFan]

I'm currently having a discussion with my Mormon bishop. I still keep a relationship with a number of people in the church as does my kids. I don't attend but I don't mind having philosophical discussions. In any event.

Bishop: "I don't believe in philosophy"

Me: Which definition are you referring to?

{Long pause and reflection}

Bishop All of them.

Me: Science is a branch of philosophy. Do you not believe in science?

{Bishop does not answer question}

Bishop: The wisdom of men is foolishness to god.

(Cor 1:5 for those interested)

Not wanting to prematurely end the discussion I did not point out that his response was a non sequitur. Perhaps I should have.

Me: Philosophy can be defined as a set of beliefs or a search for the truth.

Bishop: Those are philosophies of men. God does not have a philosophy because God IS truth.

Me: What do you mean by philosophies of men? God is not empirical. One must believe in god. That is a philosophical statement.

It went down hill from there. I should point out that this is from my recollection from a week ago. I don't claim it to be exact but pretty close.

[uruk]

"Oh, your an agnostic? Oh, you'll come back to god, you'll see."

[Lisa Simpson]

The "no atheists in a foxhole" always annoys me.

[Shrike]

From my religious mother: "You'll believe when you're grown up".
I am now (I think). Check. Nope.
"You'll believe when you meet someone and get married.
Done. Still nothing.
"You'll believe when your child is born."
Four months to go, mom's got her fingers crossed....

[Iacchus]

In the name of Ja-hee-sus! ... Or, are these just the Evangelicals that do this?

[Glacian]

"Those weren't Real Christians."

"You read that passage out of context."

"I don't know who hurt you but I'm very sorry you had a bad experience with Christians..." (Or something to this effect. The condescending assumption that I must have had some negative experience with Christians is irritating as hell)

"You're just rebelling against God" (Or anything suggesting that you really do believe in God, and are just denying him)

"If you ask for Jesus to come into your heart and for God to speak to you you will hear his voice"

A lot of them make remarks such as that if I accept Jesus "into my heart" (that is, if I start believing in Jesus) then I will understand (that is, understand believing...). These people seem oblivious to their dance with circular reasoning.

Also, any quotes implying they have personal and direct communication with God, especially when they say he "talks back". I always ask HOW he talks back. Is it an actual sound? Nope, usually just a feeling "in the heart", or some other vague, fuzzy notion that could just as easily be mental delusion.

"if it turns out you are wrong, remember I warned you and you rejected God."

They also don't understand that when I say that even if the Christian God DID exist, I *STILL* wouldn't worship him. I couldn't, in good conscience, worship a being that slaughtered and condoned the slaughter of innocent children.

"I hate the sin, and love the sinner."

translation: "I'm a bigot and I hate gays, but I don't want to admit that, so I'll just say I hate homosexuality instead."

[Meadmaker]

"The second law of thermodynamics proves...."

Appropriate response:
Did you know the laws of thermodynamics are only a theory?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
"The second law of thermodynamics proves...."

Appropriate response:
Did you know the laws of thermodynamics are only a theory? As a former proponent of such an argument I would say the appropriate answer is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems.

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by RandFan
As a former proponent of such an argument I would say the appropriate answer is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems.
Are you claiming the universe isn't a closed system?

Or is this the 'the grass keeps growing~ therefore god exists.' kind of argument.

[cbish]

farmermike wrote: Usually made by a former drug addict,criminal or someone that just thought they were real bad. This is an interesting point. My wife is spending the weekend with several co-workers one of who is "born again". It got me to thinking about the types of people who are fundamentalist. To oversimplifiy, I'd say they're two types: the traditionalists who were born into it; and the converts who have "come to Jesus". What I find interesting are these converts. Of all the converts I know of, they led very excessive life styles in their youth. They were extreme in partying, sex, drugs, you name it. Now that they're in mid-life, it's Jesus for me.

Knowing my wife & her friends;) , I'll be curious how long Jesus stuck around!:D

Randfan wrote:Bishop: Those are philosophies of men. God does not have a philosophy because God IS truth. Man, you & I definitely need to have a beer together. It seems to me that a discussion like this always breaks down to the fact that God speaks directly to mormons. How have you gotten around this? How can you converse with someone who believes God speaks directly to church leaders?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jekyll
Are you claiming the universe isn't a closed system?

Or is this the 'the grass keeps growing~ therefore god exists.' kind of argument. No, I'll withdraw my point. Someone on this forum (I thought it was Stimpson) argued convincingly and either I flubbed the explanation or the individual didn't explain it as well as I had thought.

The second problem with the Law of Conservation of Energy (aka the First Law of Thermodynamics) is that one of the Assumptions on which it is based is often neglected in the mathematical treatment of the law and the results which are derived from it. No rational physicist would argue that fundamental to the Law of Conservation of Energy is the restraint or assumption that we are dealing with a closed system! If the system is not closed, then the law is not strictly applicable, and thus there is no violation of the law.

The same need for a closed system exists in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which basically states that the “order of a system must always decrease� -- or alternatively, Entropy, physics’ measure of disorder, must always increase. The difficulty is that most systems -- even when they are believed to be a closed system -- are quite the contrary. Physicists who assume they can achieve a closed system in their experiments are simply wrong. The ideal, closed system is much harder to achieve than one might imagine. In fact, Quantum Physics -- notably Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle -- states that the very act of observation of an experiment is an intrusion into the system, and effectively alters the experiment.

Furthermore, if as the world’s philosophical and spiritual traditions claim (i.e. theorize) that we live in a connected universe, then there are no closed systems except for one of universal size. (And that might be invalid as well, if parallel or Multiple Universes exist!)

The Fifth Element and Zero-Point Energy suggest that everything in the universe is in fact connected. On the one hand, Mach’s Principle claims inertia is due to the interaction of all masses in the universe, while more recently it has been demonstrated mathematically in the arena of Zero-Point Energy, that all electric charges in the universe interact. The Fifth Element theory goes on to show that there are no limits to the energy that might be conveyed from one entity to another. In all respects there are no closed systems, only approximations.

Back at the physics ranch, the Laws of Thermodynamics must then be viewed as useful tools in which we can accomplish all manner of conjecture and ultimately achieve an effective technology. But these Laws are always approximations, and can in principle never be used to eliminate alternative possible scenarios. The great danger is that we forget the limitations of the laws, and assume them to be without exception. However, the laws are correct only in a closed system, but inasmuch as there are no closed systems in the universe, the laws cannot always be used to disprove other more radical theories.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by cbish
Randfan wrote: Man, you & I definitely need to have a beer together. It seems to me that a discussion like this always breaks down to the fact that God speaks directly to Mormons. How have you gotten around this? How can you converse with someone who believes God speaks directly to church leaders? Short answer: You cant!

Mormons are always saying "I know the church is true". When asked how, they usually just give you a smug look of confidence and simply say "I just know". Which is roughly equivalent to the digested results of hay exiting from the rear of an equine.

I have tried to break through this wall by using the The Monty Hall Problem (http://www.remote.org/frederik/projects/ziege/). This is what convinced me that I couldn't "Know". My internal intuitions and feelings are subject to error. They simply are not infallible. The problem with the "problem" however is that it is so counter intuitive that most simply dismiss it and refuse to consider it even when an explanation is given. Of course this is why the problem can be beneficial. If you can get a person to realize that intuition is fallible then it is possible for them to consider that they could also be wrong about their belief in god.

Another question I ask that goes no where but should is, "if you know then why do you call it faith?"

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by RandFan
As a former proponent of such an argument I would say the appropriate answer is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems.

That would be a good answer if you happened to be dealing with someone who was willing to listen to reason and had some sort of interest in grasping the science behind the issue. However, the vast majority of people who would make the argument in the first place don't fall in either category.

If they did, they would probably have shown enough interest to actually look up the second law of thermodynamics in a science book, in which case they would already know it.

With my answer, you would at least turn the tables on the person who made the argument, put them on the defensive, and illustrate one of their own fallacies about the use of the word "theory" when they say "Evolution is only a theory."

Maybe an even better answer would be, "Actually, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, but did you know that the laws of thermodynamics are only a theory?"

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Maybe an even better answer would be, "Actually, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, but did you know that the laws of thermodynamics are only a theory?" No argument.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Quinn
"I pity you."

"How can you stand the thought of living in a cold, meaningless universe?"
Theists always assume that a universe created by God must be meaningful. They just can't tell you what that meaning is except that we'll find out after we die.

[Beerina]

One of my favorites: "When you get smarter (as in educated) you stop believing in God. When you get even smarter, you start believing again."

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I'll withdraw my point. Someone on this forum (I thought it was Stimpson) argued convincingly and either I flubbed the explanation or the individual didn't explain it as well as I had thought.
I've heard the claim that life on earth is growing in complexity(?increasing in enthralpy?) and so is in defience of of the laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore God exists.

Aside from the strange logic, the problem is that the earth is not a closed system and it is the sun, not God that makes the grass grow.

I just wondered if you were talking about a different argument.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jekyll
I've heard the claim that life on earth is growing in complexity(?increasing in enthralpy?) and so is in defience of of the laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore God exists.

Of course, if the claim is really that "life on earth is growing in complexity" (or increasing in entropy, I think is what you mean) that is not in any way in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and you don't even need to invoke open/closed system differences.

BTW, I recommend against saying that the 2nd law "only applies to closed systems." The second law of thermodynamics most certainly applies to everything that happens, regardless of whether the system is open or closed. It is the consequences of the 2nd law that depend on the type of system. What you can say is that the requirement that entropy increases only applies to closed systems. In open systems, OTOH, the 2nd law still applies but allows for entropy to increase provided that the increase is accompanied by the release of heat (and thereby satisfying the Clausius inequality).

In this case, I am applying the 2nd law in the form of its general Carnot statement: it is not possible to create a process in which the sole result is the input of heat and its complete conversion to work. From this statement of the second law, it is possible to show other consequences, including the general statement of the Clausius inequality (dS > dq/T) which leads to the famous equation based on free energy (dG < dH - T dS) or the more limited statement that the entropy of a closed system must increase (dS > 0, but this is limited in the sense that it does not tell us anything about how to consider open systems)

[Brown]

The one I encounter the most is the one in which attributes of the Almighty are presented as though they are self-evident:

"God loves ____."

"God wants ____."

"God despises ____."

"God believes in ____."

"God commands ____."

"God will ____."

"God promises ____."

One may be tempted to respond with "How do you know?" A better response might be something like, "Oh, the Almighty told you this personally, did He?" The claimant's response is likely to be "No, but...." (E.g., "No, but the Bible says so." "No, but my minister says so.") The reply can then be, "So this is hearsay, then? It's based upon something that was told to you."

One can then explain that, when a person claims to know what the Almighty loves, needs, wants, etc., one who hears such a claim really ought, as a matter of reasonableness, to assess the credibility of the claim. If the claimant becomes upset, one can ask, "Are my questions unreasonable?"

In many cases, the claimant resorts to the Bible, saying it is the Word of God. That assertion is countered with "And we know the Bible is the Word of God because...?"

Let me be very clear. I do not wish to be argumentative for the sake of being a pain in the fundament. Nor do I argue because I have already made up my mind. I ask these question because I want to know the answers to them.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jekyll
I've heard the claim that life on earth is growing in complexity(?increasing in enthralpy?) and so is in defience of of the laws of thermodynamics.

Therefore God exists.

Aside from the strange logic... Hi Jekyll,

I don't know how "strange" it is. More to the point I would say that it is a missunderstanding of entropy (I assume you mean "entropy").

Let me play devil's advocate (god's advocate?) for a moment.

When we observe the natural world we see that there is a tendency for systems to move from a state of order to a state of disorder (chaos). A human starts out in an orderd fashion and soon that person breaks down and becomes disordered. A solar system begins its cycle in an orderly process and then it becomes chaotic.

Scientists have observed this same phenomenon when ordered energy moves from one state to the next. The degree of this "disorder" can be measured and it is that potential for disorder that is inherent in any system where work is performed that is known as "entropy".

If this is true then the question becomes, how do ordered systems emerge from a chaotic state (big bang)?

There are of course a number of problems with this thinking. I don't think the logic is strange just a matter of missaplying of principles.

In the context that entropy is employed in this belief, what is being recognized is that all things tend to move from a state of "order" to a state of "disorder." Although this is neither the primary nor precise definition of entropy, it is an acceptable extrapolation of entropy's influence in nature. It is evident that virtually everything in nature does tend to "run down"; things do tend to move from a state of order to a state of disorder. All life on Earth ages over time; the sun is slowly consuming its fuel by radiating energy; the universe disperses its finite energy as it continues to expand. In a sense, these Creationists believe that when sin was introduced everything within our universe then began to move in a particular direction - that of increasing entropy (or "disorder") over time.

It is true that any natural process contained within a closed system will distribute its energy in such a manner that its entropy will increase over time. This is essentially what the Second Law of Thermodynamics attempts to define. However, what these Creationists are attempting to associate with entropy is overstating and incorrectly applying this accepted scientific process.

...the problem is that the earth is not a closed system and it is the sun, not God that makes the grass grow. And that was my original point.

I just wondered if you were talking about a different argument. No, it was that one.

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hi Jekyll,

I don't know how "strange" it is. More to the point I would say that it is a missunderstanding of entropy (I assume you mean "entropy").


Hi,
Yup, that would be the one. My physics terminology is more then a little rusty.

Let me play devil's advocate (god's advocate?) for a moment.

When we observe the natural world we see that there is a tendency for systems to move from a state of order to a state of disorder (chaos). A human starts out in an orderd fashion and soon that person breaks down and becomes disordered. A solar system begins its cycle in an orderly process and then it becomes chaotic.

Scientists have observed this same phenomenon when ordered energy moves from one state to the next. The degree of this "disorder" can be measured and it is that potential for disorder that is inherent in any system where work is performed that is known as "entropy".

If this is true then the question becomes, how do ordered systems emerge from a chaotic state (big bang)?

There are of course a number of problems with this thinking. I don't think the logic is strange just a matter of missaplying of principles.

Nope, I'm not buying it.

Just because (irregardless of what we're talking about) we don't understand how something works it doesn't mean that god must be interfering with the system.

I can see how if you are looking for God, you might see him everywhere but still, it just smacks of overwelming intellectual arrogance to claim that the unexplained must be the work of God.

Consider dark matter, dark energy and the origins of life. No one full understands them or even knows if the first two exist, but they are not proof of the existence of God.

[Meadmaker]

Thought of a new irritating saying:


"Why do you only believe in what you can see?" (or can't prove)

It's irritating for two reasons. First, it's rarely true. I believe in plenty of things I can't see. I just recognize when my beliefs are based on faith/opinion/hunches as opposed to evidence. The underlying belief seems to be that if you don't believe in what they do (i.e. God) you must not believe in anything that isn't demonstrable.

Second, for those people who really do only believe in things they can prove, there's nothing wrong with that. Why "should" you believe in something you can't see?

[arthwollipot]

"You have so much hatred and rage in your heart - why do you hate God?"

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jekyll
Nope, I'm not buying it. That is fine. Since I no longer accept the argument I don't expect you to buy it.

Just because (irregardless of what we're talking about) we don't understand how something works it doesn't mean that god must be interfering with the system. You mean regardless don't you? irregardless is a double negative and is the equivalent of not regardless. Just say regard or regardless.

In any event, I'm not certain what this has to do with the argument. I don't know of anyone making a god of the gaps argument as it applies to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I can see how if you are looking for God, you might see him everywhere but still, it just smacks of overwhelming intellectual arrogance to claim that the unexplained must be the work of God. I'm not sure that when I held such a belief that I was arrogant. I think I was simply mistaken. There is a line of reasoning behind the argument however wrong it might ultimately be.

Consider dark matter, dark energy and the origins of life. No one full understands them or even knows if the first two exist, but they are not proof of the existence of God. You are correct but then the argument isn't about not fully understanding. The argument intuitively considers the very observable fact that systems by and large move from the ordered to the disordered. Nothing you have said addresses the fallacy of this idea. That something is intuitive is not reason enough to assume that it is correct.

Thanks,

RandFan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Second, for those people who really do only believe in things they can prove, there's nothing wrong with that. Why "should" you believe in something you can't see? I'm guessing that you are using the word "see" as a metaphor for "believe".

"Blessed are they who have not seen but believed." --Christ

I've never seen a proton or a neutron but I believe in them. Of course if by see you mean only accepting objective evidence then I would agree that there is nothing wrong with such a position.

I like to leave a portion of my being open to the possibility of fairies, magic, god, luck, etc. However I never conduct my life as though they were true, outside of fantasy, and when I'm soberly assessing the world I hold that such things are so very unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
That would be a good answer if you happened to be dealing with someone who was willing to listen to reason and had some sort of interest in grasping the science behind the issue.
...
If they did, they would probably have shown enough interest to actually look up the second law of thermodynamics in a science book, in which case they would already know it.

Maybe an approach is "Huh? The 2nd law states that heat only goes from hotter things to colder things. What has that got to do with order and disorder and life on earth and evolution and stuff?"

Look at them like they are from Mars - pretend you don't understand what they are getting at. Act completely skeptical of this wild claim. The point being that if thay don't understand it well enough to explain it ...

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Robin
Theists always assume that a universe created by God must be meaningful. They just can't tell you what that meaning is except that we'll find out after we die.

If God did create the universe, and created man with a plan and a purpose, why should we nessesarily want to be part of that purpose?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm guessing that you are using the word "see" as a metaphor for "believe".

"Blessed are they who have not seen but believed." --Christ

I've never seen a proton or a neutron but I believe in them. Of course if by see you mean only accepting objective evidence then I would agree that there is nothing wrong with such a position.

I like to leave a portion of my being open to the possibility of fairies, magic, god, luck, etc. However I never conduct my life as though they were true, outside of fantasy, and when I'm soberly assessing the world I hold that such things are so very unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

I'm using "see" as synonymous with having objective evidence.

For my own part, if I have objective evidence, I hope I follow that and base my beliefs on what the evidence shows to be either true, or at least consistent with the facts. So I accept the possibility that there might be a god, or even a God, but I reject biblical literalism because it goes against a whole lot of objective evidence.

Some bellievers would say that it is a virtue to believe one thing instead of another, even if there is no evidence that would help you decide. I can't see that as being a rational position.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I'm using "see" as synonymous with having objective evidence. Yeah...that too. :)

For my own part, if I have objective evidence, I hope I follow that and base my beliefs on what the evidence shows to be either true, or at least consistent with the facts. So I accept the possibility that there might be a god, or even a God, but I reject biblical literalism because it goes against a whole lot of objective evidence.

Some bellievers would say that it is a virtue to believe one thing instead of another, even if there is no evidence that would help you decide. I can't see that as being a rational position. My Mother-in-law brags about having "perfect" faith. She likes to say that her "blind" faith has never wavered. I love and respect her. She has a lot of great qualities. But this one does not impress me. One could have "blind" faith in Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or David Koresh. What good is that? The followers of these people were lead to their deaths based on blind faith.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm guessing that you are using the word "see" as a metaphor for "believe".

"Blessed are they who have not seen but believed." --Christ

I've never seen a proton or a neutron but I believe in them. Of course if by see you mean only accepting objective evidence then I would agree that there is nothing wrong with such a position.

I like to leave a portion of my being open to the possibility of fairies, magic, god, luck, etc. However I never conduct my life as though they were true, outside of fantasy, and when I'm soberly assessing the world I hold that such things are so very unlikely as to be virtually impossible. That's all very good but here's the thing:

Other people have seen protons and neutrons. Not only that, but they have made predictions based on seeing those tiny atoms that have come true, such as nuclear power and atom bombs.

I find that a sobering thought.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by pmurray
Maybe an approach is "Huh? The 2nd law states that heat only goes from hotter things to colder things. What has that got to do with order and disorder and life on earth and evolution and stuff?"

Look at them like they are from Mars - pretend you don't understand what they are getting at. Act completely skeptical of this wild claim. The point being that if thay don't understand it well enough to explain it ...

And for this reason, I think the first thing everyone should do is to LEARN it. Pull out a thermo book and learn about the 2nd law, in all it's details. Learn about Gibbs free energy, Carnot cycles, and the Clausius inequality.

If you want to see a fundy babble dumbfoundedly, ask them to show how evolution violates the Clausius inequality, or how the evolutionary process requires an increase in the Gibbs free energy. Give them a completely general statement of the 2nd law like pmurray does here. Heat only goes from hot to cold is a good one, but I always like, "It is not possible to creat a process in which the sole result is the input of heat and it's complete conversion to work." From these statements, it is possible to show things like that the entropy of a closed system increases for a spontaneous process but that the entropy of an open system does not necessarily increase, or that the entropy of the universe must increase. OTOH, it's important to know about these things before you start, so that you don't babble in return.

If you don't have that much background and aren't all that familiar with these things aside from what you read in internet discussion groups, then I think the best approach is to play dumb, and keep asking why and how. Ask where they learned it, and if they say they read it or heard it, ask them where. If they say in church or on the web, just note that these are not the best places for learning science. I guarantee none will say they learned that evolution violates the second law in thermodynamics class.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
Other people have seen protons and neutrons. Really? You learn something new every day. I thought the closest we came to "seeing" neutrons and protons was at the atomic and not sub atomic level.

http://www.sljus.lu.se/stm/NonTech/Si111.jpg

Each bright bump in the pattern is one Si atom

AIU even with our most powerful scanning electron microscope we have never "seen" protons and neutrons. But hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Do you have a photograph of an atom showing neutron and protons. I don't mean a photo of a drawing but an actual photo.

Not only that, but they have made predictions based on seeing those tiny atoms that have come true, such as nuclear power and atom bombs. I don't think Einstein saw an atom. Further I think his predictions were based on indirect evidence and not by looking at any atoms.

I find that a sobering thought. That the predictions came true and other experiments proved to high level of certainty that atoms were as believed is why I believe in protons and neutrons.

[Moon-Spinner]

“If you don’t believe in God, then you don’t believe in Mankind�

I still have no idea what this one means.


“Those other religions (ex: Buddists) are worshipping the Christian God, they just don’t know it�

Maybe Christians are actually worshipping Budda, but they just don’t realize it yet! I’ve heard this argument in so many different forms (All other religions in the world are worshipping the same God – the Christian God), I cringe when I even sense that it’s about to be spoken!


My girlfriend’s sister said this one: “Native American religions are invalid because they don’t have a Bible�.

As my girlfriend said, maybe she could find a book about the Native American mythologies, because if all it takes to have a valid religion is a book that has your particular brand of mythology written down, then pretty much all religions should be valid in her sister’s eyes (Oh wait, I forgot, the Bible isn’t mythology – Dammit!).

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by RandFan
Really? You learn something new every day. I thought the closest we came to "seeing" neutrons and protons was at the atomic and not sub atomic level.


You've seen the pictures of all those curly-que tracks made by particle accelerators, no? That's the "pictures" we have of subatomic particles.

[Brown]

If someone trots out the Second Law of Thermodynamics, ask him to explain why a nuclear power plant has to throw away more energy than it puts into the power grid.

A typical nuclear power plant might generate electrical energy at the rate of 900 MW, while dumping about 2100 MW into a nearby river. More than twice as much energy is wasted as is generated.

Of course, all electrical generating plants throw away huge amounts of energy; it isn't just nuclear plants that do it. But why?

The answer requires an understanding of the Second Law. If someone talking about the Second Law can't answer this question, then it's fair to say that the person doesn't know what he's talking about.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
And for this reason, I think the first thing everyone should do is to LEARN it. Pull out a thermo book and learn about the 2nd law, in all it's details. Learn about Gibbs free energy, Carnot cycles, and the Clausius inequality.

If you want to see a fundy babble dumbfoundedly, ask them to show how evolution violates the Clausius inequality, or how the evolutionary process requires an increase in the Gibbs free energy. Give them a completely general statement of the 2nd law like pmurray does here. Heat only goes from hot to cold is a good one, but I always like, "It is not possible to creat a process in which the sole result is the input of heat and it's complete conversion to work." From these statements, it is possible to show things like that the entropy of a closed system increases for a spontaneous process but that the entropy of an open system does not necessarily increase, or that the entropy of the universe must increase. OTOH, it's important to know about these things before you start, so that you don't babble in return.

If you don't have that much background and aren't all that familiar with these things aside from what you read in internet discussion groups, then I think the best approach is to play dumb, and keep asking why and how. Ask where they learned it, and if they say they read it or heard it, ask them where. If they say in church or on the web, just note that these are not the best places for learning science. I guarantee none will say they learned that evolution violates the second law in thermodynamics class.

Originally posted by Brown
If someone trots out the Second Law of Thermodynamics, ask him to explain why a nuclear power plant has to throw away more energy than it puts into the power grid.

A typical nuclear power plant might generate electrical energy at the rate of 900 MW, while dumping about 2100 MW into a nearby river. More than twice as much energy is wasted as is generated.

Of course, all electrical generating plants throw away huge amounts of energy; it isn't just nuclear plants that do it. But why?

The answer requires an understanding of the Second Law. If someone talking about the Second Law can't answer this question, then it's fair to say that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. Perfectly valid. Still I don't think either of these would have done anything for me. Of course I don't think I'm typical of most people. I don't think it is necessary to have a perfect understanding of the laws of thermodynamics to rebut the notion that evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I think it is a case by case basis. If someone is obstinate then ignore them or offer the above. If someone is willing to have a discussion then tell them that the 2nd Law is not absolute and is simply a tool used by scientists to explain the inherent inefficiencies in systems. Evolution does not violate this law anymore than bumble bees violate the laws of aerodynamics.

It is wrong to make simple assumptions using incomplete data. More importantly the people who work with the 2nd law and DO understand have no problem reconciling evolution and the laws of thermodynamics. That doesn't mean that anyone should accept this but it is a good reason to learn more about it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
Perfectly valid. Still I don't think either of these would have done anything for me. Of course I don't think I'm typical of most people. I don't think it is necessary to have a perfect understanding of the laws of thermodynamics to rebut the notion that evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


My concern with this though is that suppose someone asks you the same question I recommended, "Where did you learn that?" How is your answer, "I learned it in an internet discussion group" any different from theirs? Because you claim to have it on good authority of scientists? They will just claim to have it from their favorite scientist, of which there is enough (or too many, as the case may be). You end up with, "My scientist can beat up your scientist."



I think it is a case by case basis. If someone is obstinate then ignore them or offer the above. If someone is willing to have a discussion then tell them that the 2nd Law is not absolute


As far as we can see, the 2nd Law is absolutely absolute. It's consequences just depend on conditions.


and is simply a tool used by scientists to explain the inherent inefficiencies in systems. Evolution does not violate this law anymore than bumble bees violate the laws of aerodynamics.

The rebuttal is simply that you can't say this, because you haven't established that evolution has occured. Just because you claim that evolution doesn't violation doesn't mean that it actually does. To them, you are speculating about something that doesn't happen. It makes about as much sense as claiming that the freezing of the Mississippi delta in New Orleans in the summer doesn't violate the 2nd law. A) The Mississippi delta doesn't freeze in the summer, and B) unless it was extremely unusual circumstances (i.e. a bizarrely cold summer in New Orleans) it most certainly would violate the 2nd Law.

You can't use the assumption that it happens to refute the claim about why it can't happen.


It is wrong to make simple assumptions using incomplete data. More importantly the people who work with the 2nd law and DO understand have no problem reconciling evolution and the laws of thermodynamics.

Except Duane Gish, who has a PhD in hydrodynamics and therefore should know thermodynamics very well. I've never understood how he could just spout the same standard drivel as everyone else.

[RandFan]

pgwenthold,

It is possible that we are not on the same page. I have read your post carefully and have concluded that either you don't understand some of my points or I don't understand yours. I have tried to be clear. Please don't take anything personal. Please try to be as clear as possible and be patient. If I am wrong I will figure it out eventually. I hope the same of you.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
My concern with this though is that suppose someone asks you the same question I recommended, "Where did you learn that?" How is your answer, "I learned it in an internet discussion group" any different from theirs? Because you claim to have it on good authority of scientists? They will just claim to have it from their favorite scientist, of which there is enough (or too many, as the case may be). You end up with, "My scientist can beat up your scientist." I don't at all agree. I would never make just an argument from authority That is why an argument from authority is often fallacious. It is not the opinion of pointy headed intellectuals that make an argument valid. There is however times when it is valid to argue from authority. But simply stating that it is true because some scientist says so is not a great idea.

It seems to me that by your logic such a discussion is impossible. I don't think so at all. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No.

As far as we can see, the 2nd Law is absolutely absolute. It's consequences just depend on conditions. Who is this "we"? :) First off, there are no absolutes in scientific understanding. It is my understanding that it is not absolute. I concede that I could be wrong. Do you have any evidence that it is accepted as absolute?

The rebuttal is simply that you can't say this, because you haven't established that evolution has occured. Again, I completely disagree that I can't make such a statement. Those who use the 2nd law are using it to show that evolution is wrong. They assume that evolution violates the 2nd law. It does not. Therefore it is reasonable to point out that fact.

The controversy can be summed up as follows:

Creationist: The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase, resulting in a universal decay of all systems.

Evolutionist: But the mathematical laws of thermodynamics state very clearly that entropy can spontaneously decrease!

Creationist: Well, that is technically true for inorganic systems, but it doesn't apply to living systems.

Evolutionist: So you're saying that entropy can not spontaneously decrease for living systems? Doesn't that mean that living things can only undergo universal decay? How then do you explain the fact they grow and reproduce?

Creationist: Well, we believe that there is a special "energy conversion mechanism" that allows living systems to overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

Evolutionist: First you said the laws of thermodynamics were universal, and now you say they are not. Please explain the discrepancy.

Creationist: God can do anything He pleases.


Just because you claim that evolution doesn't violation doesn't mean that it actually does. I can make no sense of this sentence. Because I claim that "X" doesn't violate "Y" doesn't mean that it violates "Y". ??? Huh?

To them, you are speculating about something that doesn't happen. No, I'm refuting something that they claim does happen.

It makes about as much sense as claiming that the freezing of the Mississippi delta in New Orleans in the summer doesn't violate the 2nd law. A) The Mississippi delta doesn't freeze in the summer, and B) unless it was extremely unusual circumstances (i.e. a bizarrely cold summer in New Orleans) it most certainly would violate the 2nd Law. Huh? How could my claim possibly equate to that?

You can't use the assumption that it happens to refute the claim about why it can't happen. I make no such assumption. I state the facts and then point out that there is no attempt by scientist to reconcile the 2nd law of thermodynamics with evolution because the two are quite compatible. Creationists like to pick and choose results of scientific inquiry. Which is what the 2nd law is, a result of scientific inquiry. I think it is important to show them that they are being inconsistent.

Look, scientists LOVE puzzles. They love to solve that which is counterintuitive. It is in their nature. Consider the bumble bee.

The bumble flies. That IS empirical. This fact however didn't stop idiots from going around saying that the bumble bee violated the laws of physics. So, scientists wanted to know why there was a problem with the fact that bumble bee "seemed" to violate the laws of physics. PLEASE NOTE: I said "seemed". So, what did a bunch of scientists do? The set out to prove that the bumble bee does not in fact violate any laws of physics.

Now let me ask you a question, if there were truly an incompatibility between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and evolution don't you think that there would be scientists who's goal it would be to try and explain it?

Except Duane Gish, who has a PhD in hydrodynamics and therefore should know thermodynamics very well. I've never understood how he could just spout the same standard drivel as everyone else. Yes, there are exceptions and that is why it is important to understand the limits of arguing from authority.

There is no incompatibility.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is fine. Since I no longer accept the argument I don't expect you to buy it.

You mean regardless don't you? irregardless is a double negative and is the equivalent of not regardless. Just say regard or regardless.

Yup. :D My sloppy english is going to take such a beating on these forums. Hopefully I'll learn to write proper at some point.


I'm not sure that when I held such a belief that I was arrogant. I think I was simply mistaken. There is a line of reasoning behind the argument however wrong it might ultimately be.

Hmm. I might have chosen my words a bit more carefully if I'd realised I was talking to someone who'd believed the arguement previously.

The arguement is a variation on "You don't know what the heck is going on here therefore God exists."

Everyone else has chosen to attack "You don't know what the heck is going on here" part of the reasoning whereas I chose to attack "therefore God exists."

There is an implicit naivity/arrogance to that statement, that we already know how the universe should operate and anything that lies outside of this must be supernatural. This goes beyond a belief in the laws of thermodynamics and is more an asumption that everything of any relivence bar God is already understood and accounted for.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jekyll
The argument is a variation on "You don't know what the heck is going on here therefore God exists."Hey Jekyll,

Perhaps but I know that I didn't share that point of view and I'm not certain that others do.

The line of reasoning goes like this.

(P1) All systems go from a state of order to disorder.

(P2) Evolution holds that complex biological systems emerged from non complex states.

(P3) These two statements are incompatible.

(C) If (P1) is true then (P3) must be false.

Everyone else has chosen to attack "You don't know what the heck is going on here" part of the reasoning whereas I chose to attack "therefore God exists."

There is an implicit naivity/arrogance to that statement, that we already know how the universe should operate and anything that lies outside of this must be supernatural. This goes beyond a belief in the laws of thermodynamics and is more an asumption that everything of any relivence bar God is already understood and accounted for. We'll that might be. I just don't know anyone who holds the position that every thing is understood and accounted for. If such a person exists then I have never met him or her. I'm not saying that they don't I'm just not familiar with it. I'm also not saying that creationists are not arrogant. Many are indeed. But that doesn't seem to be relevant in this case. JMO.

It is intuitive to make the conclusion that all systems move from a state of order to a state of disorder. Pick most any system in our universe and you will see that is almost always the case. A human being grows old and dies.

A clean and organized room will become messy.

A car eventually breaks down and stops working. Left alone long enough the metal and all of the parts will corrode and disintegrate.

The solar system will degrade and fail someday. Here is a mental exercise. Demonstrate a system that works counter to this observation? One that we can observe from start to finish. One that does not have a pre-set program that without any seemingly intelligent input moves from the simple to the complex.

I don't think it is arrogant to observe the world and conclude that random events couldn't have caused complex systems when the inverse is the only observable phenomenon (from start to finish with out a pre-set design).

Hold on: I do however believe that it IS naive. Such a conclusion demonstrates an ignorance of science inquiry into evolution. There IS a very good theory, supported by ample amounts of data that demonstrates that with enough time and energy complex systems CAN emerge from chaos.

[AWPrime]

All religions are based upon the bible.

I heard that BS today.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
If you want to see a fundy babble dumbfoundedly, ask them to show how evolution violates the Clausius inequality, or how the evolutionary process requires an increase in the Gibbs free energy.
That may well work one-on-one with a fundy who is prepared to think, but if your talking to a person with a limited education, you'll just lose them. And if you are in a public debate and you start rattling on about Gibbs free energy and Clausius inquality, I guarantee you lose the whole audience.

[BillyJoe]

SezMe,

The best way to have demonstrated your point would have been.....not to make it! :D

says me,
BillyJoe

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by RandFan
[B]Hey Jekyll,

Perhaps but I know that I didn't share that point of view and I'm not certain that others do.

The line of reasoning goes like this.

(P1) All systems go from a state of order to disorder.

(P2) Evolution holds that complex biological systems emerged from non complex states.

(P3) These two statements are incompatible.

(C) If (P1) is true then (P3) must be false.

Ok, I think I mis-remebered the argument as being proof in the existence of god, not as an argument against evolution.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SezMe
That may well work one-on-one with a fundy who is prepared to think, but if your talking to a person with a limited education, you'll just lose them. And if you are in a public debate and you start rattling on about Gibbs free energy and Clausius inquality, I guarantee you lose the whole audience.

And then you follow up with, "The point is, the laws of thermodynamics are far more complicated than my opponent suggests. It's not as simple as 'disorder always increases.' In order to evaluate evolution in light of the second law, you need to have a good understanding of both. By oversimplifying, we risk a real danger of coming to an incorrect conclusion, and that is what my opponent does here."

Yeah, they are lost, but that's the whole point. It's complicated! It's not trivially obvious, and most people don't know enough about thermodynamics to really be able to say for sure whether some presumed action violates the 2nd law or not. That's the lesson.

You don't have to show that evolution is possible by the 2nd law. You have to show that their objections to evolution based on the 2nd law are unfounded. And the best way to do it is to demonstrate that they don't know enough about the 2nd law to make that assessement.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by RandFan
Here is a mental exercise. Demonstrate a system that works counter to this observation? One that we can observe from start to finish. One that does not have a pre-set program that without any seemingly intelligent input moves from the simple to the complex.


Crystal growth, for example, evaporating salt from seawater or making rock candy.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't at all agree. I would never make just an argument from authority That is why an argument from authority is often fallacious. It is not the opinion of pointy headed intellectuals that make an argument valid. There is however times when it is valid to argue from authority. But simply stating that it is true because some scientist says so is not a great idea.


So let me go back to my scenerio. Consider the usual exchange:

fundy: The second law of thermodynamics says that systems naturally go from order to disorder. Evolution would involve the opposite, and so therefore is incompatable.

you: But the requirement that systems go to disorder only applies to closed systems. Since the earth is an open system, that does not apply to this case.

(note I have provided a technially correct statement, and did not use the common, incorrect statement that "the second law does not apply to open systems")

OK, suppose the fundy asks you, "Where did you hear that?" referring to your qualification of the second law. What's your answer? talkorgins.org? randi.org? pchem or physics class? Honest question, and I'll wait for your answer and go from there.



Who is this "we"? :)


Well, I could say, "PhD physical chemists who have taught thermodynamics" and it would be appropriate. Or I could say, "scientists" and it is sufficient.


First off, there are no absolutes in scientific understanding. It is my understanding that it is not absolute. I concede that I could be wrong. Do you have any evidence that it is accepted as absolute?


There has never been a process that has ever been observed to violate the 2nd law. How much more absolute would you like to get?




The bumble flies. That IS empirical. This fact however didn't stop idiots from going around saying that the bumble bee violated the laws of physics. So, scientists wanted to know why there was a problem with the fact that bumble bee "seemed" to violate the laws of physics. PLEASE NOTE: I said "seemed". So, what did a bunch of scientists do? The set out to prove that the bumble bee does not in fact violate any laws of physics.


There's a problem with this analogy, which is the source of my objection. The difference between the bumblebee and evolution is that everyone agreed that the bumblebee actually could fly, which led to the apparent contradiction. Because the bumblebee could fly, we knew that it in fact did NOT violate the laws of physics, but just our understanding of them.

Now, you want to apply the same logic to the creationist argument. You want to claim that evolution obviously does not violate the second law because it occurs, and nothing that occurs can violate the 2nd law. That's all well and good if we all agreed that evolution occurs, we would know that it must be true, regardless of our interpretation of the second law. But obviously we don't all agree.

A more appropriate analogy would be if someone tried to claim that the laws of physics say that the bumblebee can't fly, and so it must not be flying. Since it can't fly, then it must be an optical illusion or hanging on strings or some other process, but it certainly isn't flying, because the laws of physics say it can't. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying, "It can't violate the laws of physics, and because it can fly, our interpretation of the laws of physics must be incomplete." However, this conclusion requires the condition that the bumblebee is actually flying, and that is not accepted by both parties.

In the same way, you can't use the fact that evolution occurs to show that it doesn't violate the second law to counter the claim that it violates the second law, because those arguing against it don't accept that it occurs (unlike a flying bumblebee). Therefore, the statement "Nothing can violate the 2nd law, and since evolution occurs, it does not violate the 2nd law" requires the condition that evolution occurs in the first place, which is not accepted.



Now let me ask you a question, if there were truly an incompatibility between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and evolution don't you think that there would be scientists who's goal it would be to try and explain it?


There are a ton of answers to this from a creationist standpoint. They may not be all that acceptable to you or me, but there are objections. The standard theme is that scientists are too tied to their theory that they are unwilling to evaluate it critically. Or perhaps unable. Or that people have done it but the evolutionists won't listen (which is in fact partially true - certain people have tried to object based on thermodynamics and they have indeed been dismissed; of course, we know there is a good reason for that, but to them there is not a big difference between "dismissed with prejudice" vs "ignored.")

And do you really think it is a good argument to resort to the silence of scientists as anything meaningful for a fundy? These are the heathens that created evolution in the first place! If the behavior or beliefs of scientists had any bearing in this matter, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[Gestahl]

RandFan
Here is a mental exercise. Demonstrate a system that works counter to this observation? One that we can observe from start to finish. One that does not have a pre-set program that without any seemingly intelligent input moves from the simple to the complex.


I can think of several examples.

1) Formation of hurricanes/eye spot of jupiter
2) Sponataneous formation of particles/anti-particles in quantum physics
3) Formation of convection currents in heated water (pattern of movement)
4) Pure heating of a poker releases light energy
5) Formation of crystals from cooling substances

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
OK, suppose the fundy asks you, "Where did you hear that?" referring to your qualification of the second law. What's your answer? talkorgins.org? randi.org? pchem or physics class? Honest question, and I'll wait for your answer and go from there. The source of the information will not make the statement more or less valid. If you want to argue sources then I am on firm ground but it won't change the facts of the statement.

you: But the requirement that systems go to disorder only applies to closed systems. Since the earth is an open system, that does not apply to this case.

(note I have provided a technially correct statement, and did not use the common, incorrect statement that "the second law does not apply to open systems") And note that this WAS virtually my original statement. So I provided it.

Well, I could say, "PhD physical chemists who have taught thermodynamics" and it would be appropriate. Or I could say, "scientists" and it is sufficient. "We" is a blatant use of argument from authority and assumes that these individuals are in agreement with you. I think the word "I" is more appropriate but that is JMO.

There has never been a process that has ever been observed to violate the 2nd law. How much more absolute would you like to get? Sorry, this is poor logic. It does not prove that it is absolute. It only proves that it is both falsifiable and that so far it has not been falsified.

I will say it again. There are no absolutes in science. I find it odd that you insist in using the word "absolute.

The Scientific Method (http://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/scimethod.html)

Based on the data, a scientist then determines whether the hypothesis was supported or refuted. Be careful here, scientists usually don't use the word "prove" because there are no absolutes in science. In science, every conclusion must assume that the conclusion is only "true to the best of our knowledge". This is an important distinction between science and other subjects. Science is subject to change when new evidence is found. And while experimentation and observations can provide strong evidence for a conclusion, it is not absolute proof.

There's a problem with this analogy, which is the source of my objection. The difference between the bumblebee and evolution is that everyone agreed that the bumblebee actually could fly, which led to the apparent contradiction. Because the bumblebee could fly, we knew that it in fact did NOT violate the laws of physics, but just our understanding of them.

Now, you want to apply the same logic to the creationist argument. Yes I do and for very good reason. The best comparisons are those where the conclusion is agreed upon. In this case it is agreed upon that things are not always as they appear. Would you agree? That just because it "seems" that something violates a law doesn't mean that it does. Wouldn't you agree?

You want to claim that evolution obviously does not violate the second law because it occurs... NO! This is NOT my argument. Would you do me a favor? Would you be careful not to misstate my claims?

...and nothing that occurs can violate the 2nd law. Since the preceding statement does not represent my claim then this conclusion is wrong.

That's all well and good if we all agreed that evolution occurs, we would know that it must be true, regardless of our interpretation of the second law. But obviously we don't all agree. It is a little disheartening for you to create a straw man even if it is unintentional. My argument does not require that we all agree that evolution occurs. On the contrary my argument assumes that we DON'T all agree.

A more appropriate analogy would be if someone tried to claim that the laws of physics say that the bumblebee can't fly, and so it must not be flying. Since it can't fly, then it must be an optical illusion or hanging on strings or some other process, but it certainly isn't flying, because the laws of physics say it can't. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying, "It can't violate the laws of physics, and because it can fly, our interpretation of the laws of physics must be incomplete." However, this conclusion requires the condition that the bumblebee is actually flying, and that is not accepted by both parties. This would be a valid use of the example of the bumblebee. However it is not the only valid use of the example of the bumble bee. It can also be used to show that an understanding of physics can be incomplete or wrong, would you not agree?

In the same way, you can't use the fact that evolution occurs to show that it doesn't violate the second law to counter the claim that it violates the second law, because those arguing against it don't accept that it occurs (unlike a flying bumblebee). :( Aside from the fact that this is tautological it is NOT my argument.

Therefore, the statement "Nothing can violate the 2nd law, and since evolution occurs, it does not violate the 2nd law" requires the condition that evolution occurs in the first place, which is not accepted. Could you show where I made such a statement?

I think that what is most frustrating is that you are inventing this all out of whole cloth. I do NOT say that "nothing can violate the 2nd law. On the contrary, I have said that the 2nd law is not absolute. It is YOUR statement that nothing can violate the 2nd law. I do not hold this position. In fact I argue that this is not true. Please don't attribute a position to me that I do not hold especially when I clearly state "the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not absolute".

pgwenthold, Please stop doing this. Figure out what I am saying and debate MY statements and not yours.

Please quote me. Scroll back through the thread, find my words, copy and paste those words using the quote feature. This will ensure that you are debating my position and not yours.

If you are unclear about my argument ask me before you make assumptions.

This is getting old.There are a ton of answers to this from a creationist standpoint. They may not be all that acceptable to you or me, but there are objections. There are objections to everything. That there are is not a reason not to make an argument. Further it is not proof that the objections are valid or are good argument.

The standard theme is that scientists are too tied to their theory that they are unwilling to evaluate it critically. Ahh... but there are competing theories and it is not typical of scientist not to try and reconcile competing theories.

Or perhaps unable. So you (the creationist) are saying that scientists are able to come up with the 2nd law but unable or unwilling to reconcile it with evolution?

Or that people have done it but the evolutionists won't listen This assumes a willful ignorance on the part of scientists. I know this is assumed by a lot of creationists but it is proof of the arbitrary use of scientific discovery on the part of creationists. I would point out that it is demonstrable that Science is flexible to change and has changed when shown that it is wrong.

(which is in fact partially true - certain people have tried to object based on thermodynamics and they have indeed been dismissed; of course, we know there is a good reason for that, but to them there is not a big difference between "dismissed with prejudice" vs "ignored.") And this is possible. In fact science has held firm to many ideas in the past that were shown to be incorrect. But we would have to dismiss a lot of scientific understanding as to the laws of thermodynamics to come to the conclusion that evolution violates the 2nd law.

And do you really think it is a good argument to resort to the silence of scientists as anything meaningful for a fundy? By itself no. But in conjunction with a good argument that science continually checks and rechecks itself and that scientific understanding only gets better with time. To assume that the silence of science is willful ignorance is to be arbitrary in your use of scientific discovery. How does a creationist even know that the 2nd law isn't just an invention of science? You can't pick and choose which information gleaned from science that you want to believe. So, absolutely, if you make this case then it is quite appropriate. Of course little can get through the skull of a fundy but this is a great start.

These are the heathens that created evolution in the first place! If the behavior or beliefs of scientists had any bearing in this matter, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place. AND it was HEATHENS who created the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is a poor position to state that one law created by heathens is a good concept but another concept is a bad one because it was created by heathens.

That is poor logic. That is demonstrable. This is a good line of reasoning to use against fundies. Assuming you have a shot at all.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I can think of several examples.

1) Formation of hurricanes/eye spot of jupiter
2) Sponataneous formation of particles/anti-particles in quantum physics
3) Formation of convection currents in heated water (pattern of movement)
4) Pure heating of a poker releases light energy
5) Formation of crystals from cooling substances Great examples. I'm not certain that (1)(3)(4) would be accepted by some creationists as complex. Ignorance can be bliss. I don't thin (2) would be accepted as true but rejected as conjecture.

(5) would be the best.

Great job,

RandFan

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
Could you show where I made such a statement?


"Evolution does not violate this law anymore than bumble bees violate the laws of aerodynamics."

Both of these depend on the assumption that the things in fact exist. Flying bumblebees exist. The existence of evolution is the subject of the debate, and therefore these two concepts are completely different.


I think that what is most frustrating is that you are inventing this all out of whole cloth. I do NOT say that "nothing can violate the 2nd law. On the contrary, I have said that the 2nd law is not absolute. It is YOUR statement that nothing can violate the 2nd law. I do not hold this position.


Please provide a single example of ANY process that has every violated the 2nd law?

When you do, you will be the first to have done so. The 2nd law has never been observed to have been violated. Open system, closed system, doesn't matter. The 2nd law isn't violated.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by RandFan
Great examples. I'm not certain that (1)(3)(4) would be accepted by some creationists as complex.

Wow, amazing that. Sort of like we don't accept some things as "designed".

Willfull ignorance is silly.

Oh, and the virtual particle conjecture has physical proof. Look up the Casimir effect.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Please provide a single example of ANY process that has every violated the 2nd law?

When you do, you will be the first to have done so. The 2nd law has never been observed to have been violated. Open system, closed system, doesn't matter. The 2nd law isn't violated.

I disagree. The universe violates it *within constraints* all the time. Black holes are entropy sinks. They suck in highly disordered matter, and make them a highly ordered singularity. You can even make a closed system in which there is a universe with only very hot gas (maximum entropy) and one singularity (which will quickly suck it all in... minimum entropy).

The fact that they *may* explode later is inconsequential. I have showed a "violation" within a specific constraint of space and time. No one is seriously claiming all the order you see will last forever. You lose.

The problem with the 2nd law is like gambling. Sure, you can win some money, but *over the long run with all factors considered*, you are going to lose. Law of large numbers.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I disagree. The universe violates it *within constraints* all the time. Black holes are entropy sinks. They suck in highly disordered matter, and make them a highly ordered singularity. You can even make a closed system in which there is a universe with only very hot gas (maximum entropy) and one singularity (which will quickly suck it all in... minimum entropy).


And what's the energy of the system? More importantly, what is the _free energy_ change for that process?

Does the process violate the Clausius inequality?



The problem with the 2nd law is like gambling. Sure, you can win some money, but *over the long run with all factors considered*, you are going to lose. Law of large numbers.

But this just again a difference in the consequences of the laws of 2nd law based for a different conditions. Closed systems behave differently from open systems which behave differently from small sample sizes. We don't expect small systems without statistical significance to show the same behavior as result of the 2nd law, but they certainly do. You can still describe the entropy of the system by using k ln Q (can't use R here since you are microscopic), and you can define the probability of a spontaneous process. All consistent with the 2nd law.

[AWPrime]

All religions are based upon the bible.

What would be the best counter-argument?

I just don't know where to start.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by AWPrime
What would be the best counter-argument?

I just don't know where to start.

Well, probably with the fact that there are many religions that pre-date the Bible. The one that comes to mind immediately is Judaism, considering we gave birth to that bastard stepchild called "Christianity."

BTW--sorry about that.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, probably with the fact that there are many religions that pre-date the Bible. The one that comes to mind immediately is Judaism, considering we gave birth to that bastard stepchild called "Christianity."


He considers Judaism to be the samething.

I did gave them examples of old germanic gods but he just claims those are primitive nature worshipers.:mad:

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Gestahl
Black holes are entropy sinks. They suck in highly disordered matter, and make them a highly ordered singularity.
Actually (and I realize that this is counterintuitive), black holes have a very high entropy. I can't explain the reason behind it very well, but both Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" express this weird conclusion in layman's terms.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Therefore, the statement "Nothing can violate the 2nd law, and since evolution occurs, it does not violate the 2nd law"

RandFan
Could you show where I made such a statement?

pgwenthold quotin me
"Evolution does not violate this law anymore than bumble bees violate the laws of aerodynamics." Arrrrgggghhhh..... are you kidding? You really think those two statements are the same? How? I think you are being disingenuous. The first is a fallacious argument.

The second is a valid statement.

Both of these depend on the assumption that the things in fact exist. No, the second is a logical statement. It is not requisite for evolution to exist for the statement to be valid. One could say, "if" evolution exists it doesn't violate the 2nd law. So no, it does NOT depend on the existence of evolution to be valid.

Flying bumblebees exist. The existence of evolution is the subject of the debate, and therefore these two concepts are completely different. Only in YOUR debate. I assert that evolution exists. If it does then it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Please provide a single example of ANY process that has every violated the 2nd law? {sigh} You are arguing ad nauseam. You have already made this argument and I have rebutted it. I supported the argument with a statement that there are no scientific absolutes.

Again, this only proves that the 2nd Law is falsifiable and has never been falsified. Is there something that you don't understand about the scientific method?

When you do, you will be the first to have done so. The 2nd law has never been observed to have been violated. This does not prove an absolute.

Open system, closed system, doesn't matter. The 2nd law isn't violated. That it hasn't been violated doesn't prove that it is absolute or that it never will be.

At risk of wasting my time I will post the quote again. Please note the large red text.

The Scientific Method (http://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/scimethod.html)

Based on the data, a scientist then determines whether the hypothesis was supported or refuted. Be careful here, scientists usually don't use the word "prove" because there there are no absolutes in science. In science, every conclusion must assume that the conclusion is only "true to the best of our knowledge". This is an important distinction between science and other subjects. Science is subject to change when new evidence is found. And while experimentation and observations can provide strong evidence for a conclusion, it is not absolute proof. Is there something about this quote that you disagree with? Could you make an argument instead of repeating yourself? I can come up with other arguments but that seems unfair. I have made a valid argument and you simply ignore it and repeat yourself. That is fallacy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Gestahl
Wow, amazing that. Sort of like we don't accept some things as "designed".

Willfull ignorance is silly.

Oh, and the virtual particle conjecture has physical proof. Look up the Casimir effect. I will, thank you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by AWPrime
What would be the best counter-argument?

I just don't know where to start. AIU, there are many religions that historically predate most biblical accounts. Simply stating that Genisis was the begining of the world does not make it so. I believe that hinduism is the world's oldest religion.

[Nicodemus2004]

Things I often hear from the Fundies:
"No, No...stop!"
'Why are you grabbing my shirt?"
"Did you have to throw me so far?"
"You didn't have to slam the door ya know"
"Does this mean I shouldn't put you on my Return Visit list?"
"I'll pray for you...ALOT"
:D

[Riddick]

isn't this just a good 'ol knee slappin thread??!!!

tee-hee!

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Nicodemus2004
Things I often hear from the Fundies:
"No, No...stop!"
'Why are you grabbing my shirt?"
"Did you have to throw me so far?"
"You didn't have to slam the door ya know"
"Does this mean I shouldn't put you on my Return Visit list?"
"I'll pray for you...ALOT"
:D
Huskers 62
Gators 24 :D

Huskers 24
Canes 17 (in miami) :D

we won't discuss the fsu game score. :o

[Ossai]

AWPrime
All religions are based upon the bible.
What would be the best counter-argument?

I just don't know where to start.
A quick search shows that both Hinduism and the ancient Egyptian religions started long before Judaism.

Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion.
From Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm)

Ossai

[Nicodemus2004]

On occasion I have asked the faithful:
In general, which would you prefer... a beautiful lie or an ugly truth?
I have found this to give them pause enough for me to escape.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nicodemus2004
On occasion I have asked the faithful:
In general, which would you prefer... a beautiful lie or an ugly truth?
I have found this to give them pause enough for me to escape. I think such a question is quite appropriate considering the POV of the faithful. Of course the truth need not be ugly. To be honest I prefer, in some ways, the Christian mythology. Note I said "some"!

[Nicodemus2004]

Originally posted by RandFan
I think such a question is quite appropriate considering the POV of the faithful. Of course the truth need not be ugly. To be honest I prefer, in some ways, the Christian mythology. Note I said "some"!
I tend to agree. I would love to believe that my deceased realitives were "on the other side" waiting for me and I'd see them again.
But I don't. By the phrase "ugly truth" I would include, among others, that when you die, it's over. No afterlife, no supreme father-figure watching over me. I could probably come up with more but don't want to highjack.

[BillyJoe]

On the other hand....."forever" is an ugly word for me.
But there we go, everyone's different.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by RandFan
As a former proponent of such an argument I would say the appropriate answer is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems.

You're barking up the wrong tree -- that answer won't help you any. Instead, try a variant of this:

The second law of thermodynamics talks about the total enthropy of a system. As long as there is a net increase of enthropy, there can be areas in the system where you have a local enthropy decreease. In fact, this is what happens inside a refrigerator -- the refrigerator transports heat from the inside to the room outside, thereby decreasing the enthropy inside the refrigerator but increasing the enthropy of the air outside it even more.

Similar to the refrigerator, you can have a local decrease of enthropy on the planet Earth, as long as there is a greater increase of enthropy in the rest of the universe. Next to the ethropy increase caused by the sun, the enthropy decrease caused by evolution is miniscule, and we have a net enthropy increase in the universe as a whole, entirely in compliance with the second law.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
You're barking up the wrong tree -- that answer won't help you any. Instead, try a variant of this:

The second law of thermodynamics talks about the total enthropy of a system. As long as there is a net increase of enthropy, there can be areas in the system where you have a local enthropy decreease. In fact, this is what happens inside a refrigerator -- the refrigerator transports heat from the inside to the room outside, thereby decreasing the enthropy inside the refrigerator but increasing the enthropy of the air outside it even more.

Similar to the refrigerator, you can have a local decrease of enthropy on the planet Earth, as long as there is a greater increase of enthropy in the rest of the universe. Next to the ethropy increase caused by the sun, the enthropy decrease caused by evolution is miniscule, and we have a net enthropy increase in the universe as a whole, entirely in compliance with the second law. I'm sorry, could you explain why my answer is wrong? And why this answer is appropriate? What is the significance in your post that is lacking in mine. Also, please note that I don't necassarily think my response is appropriate anymore but for what I think is a different reason. In any event, regardless of validity I think your answer is far to detailed and technical for most. I think that is in part the objections of some of the posters to adressing this question.

[BillyJoe]

RandFan,

The problem is in the definition of a closed system
It exists only as an idealization and it is wrong even then.

Consider a gas isolated in space. If a small volume of it is examined over time, there will be observed to be fluctuations in the entropy as the component molecules move closer together and then further apart in a seemingly random manner. This will be true even for the gas as a whole.

Consider heat transfer. Heat is said to flow from a hot body to a cold body, but this is only the long term trend. In short time intervals, heat can move from the cold to the hot body because of the seemingly random movement of the component molecules.

BillyJoe
(But correct me if I'm wrong)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm sorry, could you explain why my answer is wrong?

Basically, it's not relevant to the question (wether evolution is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.) Even if the earth was a closed system, we could still have local areas where enthropy decreased and thus allowed for evolution to occur, as long as there was some area (say, within the mantel) where enthropy increased.

(It's also somewhat inaccurate to say that the second law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. While the most common form of the law presumes a closed system, there are generalised versions which can be used on open systems.)

And why this answer is appropriate?

Primarily because it's correct, and also because it refers to an easily understood concept (a refrigerator) to explain it in terms someone not familiar with thermodynamics can understand. Most people will find it difficult to argue that a refrigerator is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.


What is the significance in your post that is lacking in mine. Also, please note that I don't necassarily think my response is appropriate anymore but for what I think is a different reason. In any event, regardless of validity I think your answer is far to detailed and technical for most. I think that is in part the objections of some of the posters to adressing this question.

I don't really think "The second law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems" is any less technical than "The second law of thermodynamics only deals with the total entropy of the entire system," and I don't think you can explain why evolution is not in violation of the second law of thermodynamics in any less detail. Saying "No, it doesn't violate" isn't a better argument than "it does violate," even if it happens to be for the correct position.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
RandFan,

The problem is in the definition of a closed system
It exists only as an idealization and it is wrong even then. I agree and I made this point earlier.

Consider heat transfer. Heat is said to flow from a hot body to a cold body, but this is only the long term trend. In short time intervals, heat can move from the cold to the hot body because of the seemingly random movement of the component molecules. Yes, I understand this and I agree.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Basically, it's not relevant to the question (wether evolution is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.) Even if the earth was a closed system, we could still have local areas where enthropy decreased and thus allowed for evolution to occur, as long as there was some area (say, within the mantel) where enthropy increased.

(It's also somewhat inaccurate to say that the second law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. While the most common form of the law presumes a closed system, there are generalised versions which can be used on open systems.) Agreed, but there really is no system independent of any other system. The notion of a closed system is purely theoretical. We can employee such a hypothetical to understand the problems inherent in systems as entropy applies to those systems. But you are correct. If the earth were a closed system then there could be instances of decreased entropy but those would be localized and the entire system would experience entropy. Again, and please note that long before you replied I withdrew my point.

Primarily because it's correct, and also because it refers to an easily understood concept (a refrigerator) to explain it in terms someone not familiar with thermodynamics can understand. Most people will find it difficult to argue that a refrigerator is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No one would make such an argument because there is absolutely no reason for anyone to assume other wise. I don't know of anyone who ever said that humans are incapable of designing systems that decrease entropy. The refrigerator is simply an example of a system that is designed and uses energy to accomplish its task (decreasing entropy). Creationists do not state that it is impossible for a localized system to decrease entropy. In fact you prove their point. The creationist would point out that the refrigeration is a tool designed by an intelligent being to decrease entropy.

However, it should be noted that this decrease in entropy comes at a cost. The overall entropy is increased.

I don't really think "The second law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems" is any less technical than "The second law of thermodynamics only deals with the total entropy of the entire system," and I don't think you can explain why evolution is not in violation of the second law of thermodynamics in any less detail. Saying "No, it doesn't violate" isn't a better argument than "it does violate," even if it happens to be for the correct position. Which is not my argument. Nonetheless, I'm no longer convinced that my original argument is the appropriate one. I'm working on it. However I do find your argument problematic as well as technical. However this might be an inescapable problem. Entropy might at first seem a fairly simple concept but perhaps it is not as others have noted.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by RandFan
Creationists do not state that it is impossible for a localized system to decrease entropy. In fact you prove their point. The creationist would point out that the refrigeration is a tool designed by an intelligent being to decrease entropy.

When they say that "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics [because evolution entails a decrease in enthropy,]" they are in effect saying that you can never have decreased enthropy anywhere at any time. A refrigerator is the schoolbook example of a system where enthropy is decreased at one point in the system, but there are plenty of natural processes which does the same: water freezing into ice in the winter-time or the formation of crystals.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
When they say that "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics [because evolution entails a decrease in enthropy,]" they are in effect saying that you can never have decreased enthropy anywhere at any time. I wouldn't doubt that some believe this but it is not at all what most believe. Bear in mind that for most the argument really is not specific to the 2nd law.

The argument goes something like this. All systems move from a state of order to disorder. If you Google apologetics web sites they will likely give you an example of a clean room that becomes dirty or a car that gets old and broken down. From order to chaos.

Humans are the mirror of god. They to can make order from disorder. They can clean their room or build a car. They can "decrease entropy".

A refrigerator is the schoolbook example of a system where enthropy is decreased at one point in the system... Yes, but being man made this is completely understandable to a creationist.

...but there are plenty of natural processes which does the same: water freezing into ice in the winter-time or the formation of crystals. And you are absolutely correct but it is not how creationists view entropy. Freezing water and ice crystals are just natural processes. I think however that the ice crystals could be used. Ice crystals are complex and ordered. They emerge from chaos. So they would be an excellent example. Of course this not what we mean by entropy is it. The problem, as has been touched on at length is the misapplication of entropy due to the misunderstanding of the law.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by RandFan
I wouldn't doubt that some believe this but it is not at all what most believe. Bear in mind that for most the argument really is not specific to the 2nd law.

The argument goes something like this. All systems move from a state of order to disorder. If you Google apologetics web sites they will likely give you an example of a clean room that becomes dirty or a car that gets old and broken down. From order to chaos.

Well, we were discussing the specific argument "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics," which is rather specific to the second law, and the reasoning above is the misunderstanding about local versus net entropy decrease: just because all systems move "from a state of order to disorder" in the large doesn't mean that every part of the system does the same. A corporation that has a net deficient can still have divisions that make money.


And you are absolutely correct but it is not how creationists view entropy. Freezing water and ice crystals are just natural processes.

And the second law of thermodynamics describe all processes, natural or human made.

I think however that the ice crystals could be used. Ice crystals are complex and ordered. They emerge from chaos. So they would be an excellent example. Of course this not what we mean by entropy is it.

It certainly is what thermodynamics means with entropy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Well, we were discussing the specific argument "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics,"... As it is understood, or missunderstood by creationists. THAT is the problem.

...which is rather specific to the second law, and the reasoning above is the misunderstanding about local versus net entropy decrease: just because all systems move "from a state of order to disorder" in the large doesn't mean that every part of the system does the same. A corporation that has a net deficient can still have divisions that make money. Not a bad analogy AFAIK but I don't think it has any bearing on the understanding of creationists.

And the second law of thermodynamics describe all processes, natural or human made. But that is not the point. An inteligent being can create a system to decrease entropy. The problem is that you are ABSOLUTELY correct but that is NOT how creationsists see it. To understand you they will first have to divorce themselves of thier belief. And that is problematic.

It certainly is what thermodynamics means with entropy. My appologies, it's late.

[clarsct]

A decent argument is made in the commentaries about how evolution can obey the thermodynamics laws. I believe the discussion has to do with Baird cells and the like.
Here is a link:
http://www.randi.org/jr/011802.html
"The Sciences of Complexity" is the title.
I believe this is a two-part section, but I found it informative. It may give you some more ammunition for your arsenal.


And, per OP,
"Keep seeking the truth, it is only found in one place!"
Heard in the religions section of Borders from a Catholic priest.

:rolleyes: