cypress

It is including inputs and outputs as is proper. If you were asked to explain how and why the entropy of the contents of an airtight refrigerator changed, are you justified ignoring, that is not describing or even mentioning, this heat flux?

I don't think I understand your question. Gel electrophoresis and filter paper electrophoresis are distinct as far as I know so I don't understand use of a filter paper unless you mean you use the gel process as an initial method to get rough separation and then the filter paper process to more finely separate a grouping of fragments from the gel process. Is this what you mean? It is not exact but it is often very accurate. You are correct that there are several factors in play. One significant issue for example is dealing with molecular configurations that can form tertiary shapes due to hydrogen cross bonding. The key to effective and accurate sorting is in performing the process with different solvents and other agents to effect differences in the fragments that allow for correct conclusions when all the results are compared and contrasted.

What an impertinent thing to say. Terrorism is defined by the motives of the perpetrator, not the religion one subscribes to. To say such a thing seems to promote stereotyping and the rhetoric issue raised by the op. Your comments seem to confirm the concerns expressed in tis thread.

Your redefined refrigerator is now a close system that is not isolated, in contrast to your previous definition where you incorrectly claimed it was closed when it was in fact an open system. The system I am using is as you have redefined. The redefined system is the contents of a sealed refrigerator box (not even the entire refrigerator much less the entire universe). It is a closed, non-isolated system with heat flux crossing the boundary. I have been consistent about this definition ever since you redefined it. When considering what happens to net entropy, I include the contents of the refrigerator and the heat flux crossing the boundary of the system. The net entropy change is greater than zero in this example. You are incorrect. Like the regrigerator contents, system A is closed but not isolated. There is a heat flux crossing the boundary of A. The net entropy of system A including the heat flux is positive. System B is also closed but not isolated. The same heat flux leaving A is entering B so the entropy of this flux is the same magnitude but has the opposite sign. The net entropy of B including the heat flux is positive. U is a closed and isolated system of A and B. Net entropy for U is the sum of the net entropy for A and B (including the heat fluxes) which are both positive so net entropy for U is also positive. As you seem to be having difficulty with the previous simple examples, I don't think it would be constructive traipse into these just yet. If we could stay on the previous points for a bit longer I will come back to this, please though answer this question posed of you:

Fluorine has one fewer set of orbitals so now four fewer verses chlorine's three fewer. Although the effect of orbitals is less than the effect of ionic charges, eventually with enough of a difference anything will win out. With enough of them, ants can run you out of your home, right? I think studying one of these diagrams is a good way to better understand the patterns of behavior you are discovering. Realize that these are patterns of chemic behaviors based on many chemic laws but these patterns of behaviors are not the laws themselves. There are several competing laws in play with chemic behaviors. Laws are consistent but when competing laws are in play then you get patterns that are generally but not always consistent. Try to make a distinction between observations that are based on a single or non competing chemic law or property and patterns of characteristics such as ionic radius.

Yes, that is a clever way to cover for the double standard, but does nothing to address the infinite recursion. It is a non answer. The scientific answer would be that it is unknown how matter and energy came into existence in the first place but some assume it always has been in one form or another. Current evidence indicates that the matter in this universe had a beginning in a singularity but the first and final cause is beyond our means to explore. Your response is an example of how many atheists apply double standards.

When I noted that the group of atheists that don't fight fair seem to overwhelmingly overextend materialistic arguments, you admonished it as an off topic post. Are you going to remove that admonishment? Since you are no longer moderating this thread, I will instead stick to the site rules. Moontonman, you are welcome to start a new thread.

Nonsense. Opec's rise in monetary influence was not supported or enabled by military power.

Nonsense. The theist making an evidence based argument would not ever posit something that cannot be supported by evidence, and there is no need to do so. The proper move would be to leave all possible options open that are consistent with evidence but also note that the explanation that is most congruent with available evidence should be the one that is favored. Those like you who favor prior commitments (in your case an obvious bias to materialism) don't fight fair. False, since a final cause escapes both the theist and atheist, neither side holds an advantage on this point. The atheist who favors materialism as you seem to actually has the more severe issue with recursion since all we know about material tells us it must have had a beginning, and thus cannot be a final cause. Your failure to address this is yet another way the atheist does not fight fair. The truth of my statement does not depend on the definition of supernatural. Theists make science based and evidence based arguments. Your claim is false and yet another example of how atheists don't fight fair.

The question is an off topic diversion and thus a red herring. I am sorry but on this site the rules are clear. The topic here is whether or not atheists and theists fight fair. I note that neither side fights fair when they overextend their position beyond what the evidence can explain. Your claim that you can provide a great many scientific explanations is yet another example of the way many atheists don't fight fair. You are begging the question by implying that science is the exclusive providence of atheists when it is in fact not.

Simple, supply and demand which in turn is influenced by scarcity of the good, and the degree to which that good can be further leveraged for other goods. Raw materials compete for price based on what price all other holder of that same raw material is willing to trade it for and what buyers are willing to offer. Finished goods are desirable worldwide and will also have a price that reflects that combined desirability. Nonsense. The ratio is set by supply and demand. If raw material becomes more scarce, those in societies that value productivity would find local alternatives to these raw goods and those societies will remain living in Manhattans. The only practical solution to this reality is for third world contries to retool their social norms so that productivity and effective leadership is valued. In these two examples, intervention seems warranted to uphold the legal agreements that were made surrounding ownership and operation of these enterprises. The proper and legal process would be for the socialist governments to buy these enterprises out at fair market value if they wish to nationalize them. I would say this is an excellent example of the difference in social norms. The aqua duct was a productivity enhancer that can improve the standard of living for all who are able to use it. Yet this society did not perceive the value to maintaining it. You call it discouragement, I call it a social norm that does not value productivity.

Yet you are still moving the goal post because what you are arguing is evidence based arguments, which despite your claims, are not the exclusive domain of atheism, vs. unsupported claims, which are not the exclusive domain of theists. You are arguing a different topic than this thread. You are arguing evidence vs. conjecture, but the theists who fight fair do use an evidence based approach although you refuse to acknowledge that fact and the atheists who don't fight fair don't use an evidence based approach.

The ionic charge has the biggest influence since excess of electrons will cause the outer ones to be held loosely and a shortage will cause the remaining electrons to be held much more tightly. Next greatest influence is the number of layers, then the number of protons. Cs+ has a smaller ionic diameter because its possitive charge and the Cl- negative charge together override the other considerations.

False, information exists independently of the human mind. Have a look at how information is measured in modern cosmology. Information is probability reduction. Information exists wherever probability is reduced. Since you have agreed that the beach system progresses over time with no reduction in probability, you are stating that the beach system does not increase information content over time. Also you argue that just as the beach system we have discussed does not contain information, biological systems do not contain information. You argue that life from non-life did not increase information content and you argue that the DNA code is not information. Is this a correct representation of your argument?

The mind is a prime cause for many testable and positivistic outcomes and yet the mind has not been shown to have a material only source and to be material only. Your claim is false. In addition you once again have moved the goal post and failed to address the reality that many atheists don't follow this strict pattern. Those atheists who don't fight fair extend their conclusions well beyond what can be demonstrated by tests and evidence. Many even admit what they do; they admit that their conclusions are based on prior commitments.

moontonman, Your post seems to have been an elaboration of my brief description but I don't see any substantive error in my abbreviated one. Do you have any disagreement with the progression of probability of the discrete states of the beach system over time? Do you agree that over time the probability of the orientation of the discrete state of beach particles increases over time? If you disagree please explain in precise terms how probability changes over time. If so, is it your claim that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceeds by processes that also result in outcomes that have increased probability of the discrete states just as the beach example? Skeptic, does the heat flux and therefore thermal entropy change crossing the boundary of a system have any bearing on the balance of the system? Can the entropy of the balance of the system you described change without this or a similar flux? If you were asked to explain how and why the entropy of the contents of an airtight refrigerator changed, are you justified ignoring, that is not describing or even mentioning, this heat flux? If your claim is that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceed by processes similar to the heat pump example then please describe for me the thermal and information and molecular order imported by way of fluxes into the chemic and biological system.

The primary cause seems to be socio-political. A combination of culture and perhaps a long history of leadership that together values goals that are inconsistent with wholesale raises in society productivity. Low productivity is the immediate cause of poverty. Failure by society and leadership together to value productivity is the final cause. The drivers behind this failure are of course many and complex. Economic productivity. Producing things of value that people through out the world would like to trade other things of value is what makes a nations unit of economic activity strong. Leadership has a role in enabling productivity and corrupt government officials interested primarily in enriching their own lives on the backs of the people certainly don't help. Only society as a whole can encourage and insist the government leadership do their job properly. Social norms encouraged and required strong and fair leadership and self reliance. Those concepts where core values of society, and so society would not tolerate poor leadership and did not reward low productivity. Individuals have to have a desire and responsibility to be productive, and a belief that leadership is accountable to society as a whole. Send people who have those beliefs. Poor countries will likely remain poor so long as social norms remain stagnant.

The act of making errors in deliverables involving contracts surrounding matters of substance is often illegal, and discovering and reporting the error often results in legal fines. Correcting the error is not illegal but it is a requirement. Restated business performance reports in my business often involves a fine for the error. John seems to be making a fair point that because the interpretation of this information has significant implications, it is critical that the report be correct and that those who provide it exercise due diligence in the process of reporting and describing the implications.

Straw man argument. I clearly referred to the source or cause of this material. Many atheists make bold claims about the source and cause of the material, the universe and the the configuration of much of this material including the configuration that results in life. You changed the claim to make it seem like I was referring only to the material itself. Those who assert as many atheists do, that there is a material explanation for this universe, that material only causes are responsible for the configuration of this universe and life in it, also have a high burden of proof to meet for these statements. Many attempt to make a proof, but all attempts have failed.

Alright let's explore this idea. You claim that abiogenesis and evolutionary processes work the same way these other processes work. Four different examples have been given and I have suggested that none of these processes fit the posited models of abiogenesis and evolution in deriving all observed diversity . Skeptic provided a heat pump / heat transfer example where heat flux was removed from a system. This relies on random brownian motion and energy transfer in particle collisions. In this process there is a net thermal entropy increase. The second example is in growth of crystals. This process involves random processes of brownian motion and deterministic processes involving electric forces between the atoms/molecules such that the probability of the orientation of discrete molecule and atom positions is unchanged as the crystals grow. Also like the heat pump example the there is heat flux removed as the solid forms. Therefore net entropy again increases. The third example was of sorting of various sand and stone particles on a beach where again random processes provide movement and deterministic processes provide placement. Again, as the configurations of the discrete states change, the probability of these orientations do not decrease since deterministic processes dictate placement. The final example was of growth, but since growth is managed and controlled by prescriptive information, growth is also a deterministic process that does not alter probability. Net thermal entropy of the system increases also for reasons previously explained. Which of these examples specifically does evolutionary processes most closely follow? Which process specifically does abiogenesis most closely mimic? What are the differences and how do those differences influence the progression of probability of the discrete states?

Sodium acetate heating pads have very high heat capacity due to the trihydrate phase change that takes place at about 58 degrees C. The same principle as ice only in opposite. You can use these or other similar material that solidifies at the desired temperature.

How can you objectively establish the truth of these statements? Thanks for making my point with these excellent examples of truths from non-scientific disciplines. These are not scientific tests and not scientific methods. These are established by historical documents and eyewitness notaries and social norms. Theists also rely on scientific methods, historical documentation, eyewitnesses and social norms. Atheist debaters mischaracterize their opponent and thus don't fight fair when they deny this. Not all atheists ALWAYS reason this way, and MANY theists do use this same reasoning processes. I am not an atheist and I reason the way you describe, but I find many atheists making truth claims based on unsupported belief and prior commitments as opposed to reason and logic. The fact that they do is enough for this thread. Both atheists and theist construct defective relations between evidence and conclusions, but neither group need to. A theist can adopt positivistic methodology and make make existence posits solely on empirical evidence and so forth. The dispute is always about what the evidence means. Theists observe and sense evidence. They simply reach different conclusions about what the evidence means. this dispute is not about the evidence it is about how and why the evidence came to be the way it is. Only some atheists make claims that are unwarranted. Only some have metaphysical beliefs based on prior commitments. I don't make this claim. Your example is a straw man. Nor do I make this claim. I have not seem anyone ask you to disprove anything. You are begging the question. However many atheists do assert with confidence that the universe and everything in it has a material only source. This claim is metaphysical and lacks empirical support. It is certainly not following the method you describe.

I'm not sure what your point is marat. Atheists and theists make use of scientific reasoning from time to time and when it is applied appropriately it can explain what happens under known conditions. But there are many lines of questions that science is not presently equipped to answer and some, by their nature, can never be adequately answered by the scientific method. Furthermore in describing what the theist is arguing and what a theist must do in that argument, your bias is to place the theist in the worst possible position and in doing so this is another way that many atheists don't fight fair. Why should the theist be required to make a scientific argument for a line of questioning that you know very well cannot be answered by science? Why not instead ask the theist to make scientific argument only for the physical tenets and a philosophical argument for the metaphysical tenets? It is also incorrect to claim that the atheist remains exclusively in the realm of scientific inquiry. Many atheists hold to a wolrdview that is not supported by scientific knowledge. The worldview many hold to is metaphysical it and is supported only by belief, only by a prior commitment.

Strictly adopting the seven rules would only answer questions of what particular physical events proceeded but would not answer how some event came to be the way it is or why. Historical sciences would be nearly impossible if constrained by these rules. Atheists who adopt your suggested aproach would therefore be silent on the question of a creator. Since many atheists are not silent, is it fair to say they are overstepping scientific reasoning?

Good question. I'll look into it. Perhaps you might also suggest implications.