|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2003 : 17:36:11 [Permalink]
|
| DA, your failure to admit that I admitted the obvious is doubly pathetic. Your failure to provide evidence or argument to refute my position (you've been refuting a completely different position - one I do not hold - a strawman), when that's what you demand of others is hypocritical. Your refusal to post citations which are requested of you is stonewalling and hypocritical, since you demand citations from others, as well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 23:09:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
DA, your failure to admit that I admitted the obvious is doubly pathetic. Your failure to provide evidence or argument to
refute my position (you've been refuting a completely different position - one I do not hold - a strawman)
Dave one thing is obvious from your (what I can only conclude is) willful ignorance of both my analytical argument: quote:
There is some equivocation going on here but tis you who are committing the fallacy.The horsepower of the engine
determines how fast your car will move.If a car with 80hp is petal to the metal according to your strange logic would pass a
car with 300hp cruising at only half throtle.
and my suppling with a repeatable experiment: quote:
Your little cause of pushing down on the
"gas pedal",supposedly results in a great effect? But WHY Dave? If the car isn't turned on does it? And like both of us
stated other things have to occur first(gas in the tank,clutch in drive ect.) before the effect of the car changing its normal
state of inertia to where it is no longer a body at rest, and just why is that Dave its thehorsepower of the engine!Try this
"little" experiment Dave (hopefully you have a powerful enough engine that will demonstrate my point) strat you car up and
put it in drive DON'T TOUCH THE GAS PEDAL,also do this on a level area,and watch a miracle happen Dave,THE CAR WILL
BEGIN TO MOVE.The reason being is the horse power of the car will CAUSE it to leave its state of inertia.All your pressing
on the gas pedal does is allow the cause of the movement to use more of the horsepower and move at a greater speed.
as empirical evidence to prove my point.How do respond? By ranting and raving claiming now (apparently after you realised how lame your original position was) that I have: quote:
(... been refuting a completely different position - one I do not hold - a strawman)
.Face it Dave when comes to understanding cause and effect you are a lost cause |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 00:19:18 [Permalink]
|
No, DA, you have always, apparently, been arguing for something which I don't disagree with: that the 2nd LoT applies to closed systems. However, a car isn't a closed system. Your "analytical argument" is only applicable to closed systems, and not systems in which extra energy is supplied from outside (gasoline). You've ignored my suggestion that you create a plot of work done by a foot on the gas pedal versus work done by the car, which would easily show that the work done by the car is always much greater than the work done by the person controlling the car.
When it comes to understanding cause and effect, only your strict interpretation of those words (as being the equivalent of "entropy" per the 2nd LoT) can prove your point. In other words, if you redefine the phrase, you win. Bravo. Using that sort of 'logic', I can prove that I am king of the world, and that you should send all your money to me.
Any "ranting and raving" I might have been doing, I've been doing since I first posted to this thread. It's quite obvious to me that you've been using the idea of "cause and effect" in an inappropriate manner for quite some time. The fact that you refuse to provide a citation to support your view, and instead blatantly ignore the request, just supports my idea that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Here's another example: the effect is "World War II" - what was its cause? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 00:40:35 [Permalink]
|
| Slater, I expected nothing different. I've been playing this game for a few years now, and learning the game for longer than that. Had I stumbled across these particular threads on this particular forum four years ago, I probably would have heeded your advice to not waste my time. I may only have become a "skeptic friend" with my previous post, but I think I might have a slightly different 'angle' on this than you (and others here) do (no offense intended to any of you, of course - I lurked here for at least a year prior to ever posting, and have nothing but respect). It may look like the same old crap in this thread, but I think I'm getting the desired results already. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 16:32:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
However, a car isn't a closed system. Your "analytical argument" is only applicable to closed
systems, and not systems in which extra energy is supplied from outside (gasoline).
My have you done 180% turn here Both of us already agreed that for either of our examples to work certain parameters had to be in the picture("the car is in drive,IT HAS GAS ect.).Now you want to pull a bait and switch to avoid your obvious blunder,well it won't work "slick Davey": quote:
You claimed that, scientifically, we know that effects cannot be larger than their causes. I presented a counter-example
which proves that generalized premise to be false. Would you like another? If I push down three inches on my gas pedal
for 60 seconds, my car moves a hell of a lot more than 3 inches during that time. Little cause, big effect.(taken from p.7 of this thread)
Your original position was that the cause of the car leaving its state of inertia was the effort you applied to the gas pedal.I disagreed and pointed out that by your failed attempt of a logical argument the following should be true: quote:
There is some equivocation going on here but tis you who are committing the fallacy.The horsepower of the engine
determines how fast your car will move.If a car with 80hp is petal to the metal according to your strange logic would
pass a car with 300hp cruising at only half throtle.
It doesn't matter open or closed systems the car with more horsepower will move faster, because the engine doing the work will cause it to do so(all of this will happen subject to,not in violation of as you stated,with the second LTD,i.e. the engine will wear down,belts have to be replaced,gas pumped ect...).Now to move a 1600lb auto around this land of ours requires a hell of a lot more energy/cause than the speed/effect,hence my point is clear and verifiable,while yours is a pipe dream. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 18:52:58 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
Your original position was that the cause of the car leaving its state of inertia was the effort you applied to the gas pedal.
See, this is where you are wrong, with the parts you emphasized. I said nothing about 'effort' in that original post. But if you want to bring that back into the question:
Plot the amount of work spent pushing on the pedal versus the amount of work, and no matter what the size of the engine (above a certain miniscule point), the slope of the line will show that the car is doing a heck of a lot more work than the foot, always. You don't even need the transmission to be in drive for this to be true, since in idle the engine is still doing a whole lotta work compared to the foot.
The 2nd LoT also has little to do with the engine wearing down. Where did you get that idea from?
quote:
Now to move a 1600lb auto around this land of ours requires a hell of a lot more energy/cause than the speed/effect...
Did I state that the speed of the car was the effect I was interested in? I'm only interested in a miminum speed of 15 feet per hour, actually (3 inches every 60 seconds). If cars move slower than that, in response to a three-inch deflection of the gas pedal for one minute, you're absolutely correct. But they don't, typically. You are, once again, redefining the argument to suit your needs, instead of debating the actual point.
Another, easier, example: one little spark can cause the detonation of 1,000 lbs of TNT.
So you've now got 6 or 7 different examples of big effects from smaller causes. You've attempted to refute two of them. But more importantly, you've never provided evidence that your position is a "foundational principle of science," nor have you provided a definition of 'mind' which requires that minds follow this "effects can only be smaller than their causes" idea. That is, after all, what you were talking about which prompted this sidetrack of the thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2003 : 09:40:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
Another, easier, example: one little spark can cause the detonation of 1,000 lbs of TNT.
Like I said before you are one confused puppy.The one "little spark " merely detonates 1,000 or 100,00 lb of TNT(By the way have ever heard of explosion creating anything but chaos but another one of your mistaken beliefs is you believe blindly that supposedly the biggest one ever created everything including DNA and your mind),the explosive power contained in the TNT causes the explosion. quote:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question397.htm
quote:
Plot the amount of work spent pushing on the pedal versus the amount of work, and no matter what the size of the engine (above a certain miniscule point), the slope of the line will show that the car is doing a heck of a lot more work than the foot, always. You don't even need the transmission to be in drive for this to be true, since in idle the engine is still doing a whole lotta work compared to the foot.
(emp.mine)
Like I said before again Dave,that was,is my point your was that: quote:
If I push down three inches on my gas pedal
for 60 seconds, my car moves a hell of a lot more than 3 inches during that time. Little cause, big effect.(taken from p.7 of this thread)
Your pushing (effort) on the gas pedal allows more fuel to enter the engine where the cause of the acceleration takes place. quote:
The 2nd LoT also has little to do with the engine wearing down. Where did you get that idea from?
In case you haven't noticed Dave the Whole Universe is subject to entropy I believe the mechanical efficiency of the engine falls into that category. quote:
But more importantly, you've never provided evidence that your position is a "foundational principle of science,"
You might want to start with Francis Bacon's,Novum Organum . quote:
nor have you provided a definition of 'mind'
Ahh Dave wrong again I said in several different threads( I'll have to get back to on the ref's) that a mind is capable of self-reflective thought about his/hers existence,the laws of rational thought,able to investigate the universe around them and make rational predications based on those observations and in compliance with the laws of rational thought.You know Dave homo sapein "Man The Thinker".Now the big difference between us Dave is I have REASON for my confidence in reason my source is that our ability to reason was bestowed on us by our VERY RATIONAL CREATOR.Your shakey confidence in reason was already manifest on another thread where you were defending the position that it was unreasonable to claim "That in order to deny logic you must use it".You then tried ,just as you are here,to give some logical reasons as to why we should't believe the above statement,thus proving it,inadvertently.But tell me Dave what your theory as to the origin of our mind?  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/02/2003 09:52:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2003 : 16:49:39 [Permalink]
|
Doesn't matter what my theory of the origin of the 'mind' is, I'm asking you to defend yours. What is it about a 'mind' of your definition that forces it to follow Baconian priciples? Speaking of which:quote:
Man, the servant and interpreter of Nature, only does and understands so much as he shall have observed, in fact or in thought, of the course of Nature; more than this he neither knows nor can do.
Is it possible for me to make observations of this "rational creator" you mention? If not, then doesn't Bacon say that I cannot know it?
You have yet to provide a citation for these "laws of rational thought" you keep going on about. If they are, indeed, Aristotle's three principles of syllogism, that's a completely different thing than what the phrase "laws of rational thought" implies.
Also,quote:
In case you haven't noticed Dave the Whole Universe is subject to entropy I believe the mechanical efficiency of the engine falls into that category.
If you can find a good citation which shows that the 2nd LoT is responsible for friction, be sure to let me know.
Finally, the ball was back in your court on the "in order to deny logic you must use it" debate. The only thing I'm using logic to deny is that statement, not logic as a whole. I don't see how denying a single statement is a denial of logic in general.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2003 : 09:57:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Dave W.: quote:
Another, easier, example: one little spark can cause the detonation of 1,000 lbs of TNT.
Like I said before you are one confused puppy.The one "little spark " merely detonates 1,000 or 100,00 lb of TNT(By the way have ever heard of explosion creating anything but chaos but another one of your mistaken beliefs is you believe blindly that supposedly the biggest one ever created everything including DNA and your mind),the explosive power contained in the TNT causes the explosion.
I've seen a photo series where a word was carved into a block
of TNT and then the TNT detonated against a steel plate. The
word was neatly carved into the steel by the explosion. This is
called the Monroe Effect, and it qualifies as "...anything but chaos..."
-- Henry
|
- TW
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 23:13:01 [Permalink]
|
tw101356
quote:
I've seen a photo series where a word was carved into a block
of TNT and then the TNT detonated against a steel plate. The
word was neatly carved into the steel by the explosion. This is
called the Monroe Effect, and it qualifies as "...anything but chaos..."
-- Henry
Let me see if I understand your position(I don't want to accused of lying again);Your claiming that some intelligent being with a plan utilized their knowledge of explosives to create a design on some steel is evidence of what |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 10:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
tw101356
quote:
I've seen a photo series where a word was carved into a block
of TNT and then the TNT detonated against a steel plate. The
word was neatly carved into the steel by the explosion. This is
called the Monroe Effect, and it qualifies as "...anything but chaos..."
-- Henry
Let me see if I understand your position(I don't want to accused of lying again);Your claiming that some intelligent being with a plan utilized their knowledge of explosives to create a design on some steel is evidence of what
I was only responding to "By the way have ever heard an explosion
create anything but chaos...", but thanks for pointing out that a
creator could have designed laws of nature such that an initial
explosion from a point source could have evolved into a complex
universe where the Theory of Natural Selection is based on the fact
of evolution and the hypothesis of special creation based on
biblical inerrancy was disproven over a century ago.
Henry |
- TW
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 12:50:10 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
You might want to start with Francis Bacon's,Novum Organum.
I just ran across the complete text online, and can't find where he shows (or even asserts) that causes must be larger than their effects. Would you quote him, DA, please?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 19:07:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
If you can find a good citation which shows that the 2nd LoT is responsible for friction, be sure to let me know.
What are you talking about? Of course the 2nd Law isn't "responsible" but "friction" is certainly acting in accord with it. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 20:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've seen a photo series where a word was carved into a block
of TNT and then the TNT detonated against a steel plate. The
word was neatly carved into the steel by the explosion. This is
called the Monroe Effect, and it qualifies as "...anything but chaos..."
-- Henry
Now, that's interesting. At one time I taught demolitions to the UDT teams and the newely formed Seals. My class was shape charges.
I strongly suspect that the explosive used was Composition, either 3 or 4, rather than TNT. Anyhow, It's not that hard to do, though I'll admit that I've never blasted a signature. What I did blast was a hole through a piece of 3 '' steel plate that could be tapped to take a 7/8 bolt. I'll bet I could blast a sig, given the oportunity and a little time to work out the right charge.
This is a fine example of order in apparent chaos on a minor scale. For all intents and purposes, the Universe appears to be in a constant state of moiling flux. Stars form in staggering violence and die in super novas that we can barely comprehend. The Universe has been seen to be expanding, even accerating, at a prodigious rate. And yet, as with shape charges, it only looks like chaos.
Is this the plan of some diety? Looks like it, doesn't it? But I think not. As the shape charge follows the laws of physics, so does the Universe. My building of the charge was merely a minor interference that changed nothing except the direction of the blast. The physics remained the same.
Food for thought, no?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
