Yep. I recognized it too. And if you click the links on the page, eventually you come to the Anders Mage Page, which contains this opening sentence:
I’m done here.
That’s… a new one. Wow.
This guy is just looking for attention. He’s been posting(pasting) the OP all over the internet:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3191&pid=51577&st=0&#entry51577
Times like these calls for a Sad Trombone.
If this does not apply to you, please do not apply it to yourself.
On the whole I see that I’m dealing with a lot of very closed minded people. Many of you evidently don’t have much control over your emotions which does nothing to detract from my observation or to lend legitimacy to yourselves. As I have pointed out a number of times, I have not experienced that sort of tooth gnashing outrage from people who have a clue about science. Those people have seen what I’m saying and they have seen the relevance of it. I have my opinion and I have stated it and have done so quite clearly. An ego is a lot like a balloon. The more inflated it becomes, the thinner its skin. If some of you are so inflated as not to be able to tolerate a point of view that differs from yours, that does not mean that my chosen focus in this post is wrong, or that my observation is wrong, or that my observation is pointless. The fact that I wont roll over and play dead for your majesties does not make me a martyr either.
In addition, I have done no “crying.” I have become frustrated at times. The reasons for this include that I have made my case for something that I think is very interesting and which is not in keeping with the conventional point of view. I have given many clear examples how processes considered to be disorder clearly facilitate life, and if you cannot see any relevance in such an observation I suspect that it has everything to do with closed minded conditioning and an inability to look at the facts objectively on the part of any who are so offended, perhaps even an irrational intolerance for the nature of what I am pointing out. Hence the difference between authentic intellectual curiosity and a lot of people who seem to me to be cheerleaders on the sidelines of science.
Some things that have led to moments of frustration for me include the fact that I make the point clearly in my post that I am to be distinguished from Creationists in that they claim life is a miracle in a disordered universe, and I make no such claim. I also point out that what I see does not fit the mainstream scientific perspective. At one point one of you claimed by this that I was bashing Creationists and scientists, when I did nothing of the kind. I made the point about Creationists in the hope of avoiding the confusion that arises when anyone says something different about entropy and evolution, because I am saying that entropy drives evolution, not that evolution is a miracle in a disordered universe. Even still the mistake was made more than once with links sent to me about what Creationists don’t see in evolution. Yes, this is frustrating. At one point one of you was saying that all I pointed out was that stars form heavier elements. So never mind that I point out the role that what is apparently to be considered disorder plays in the evolution of matter and energy from stars to planets to life to soil and biological processes, and that evolution itself appears to demonstrate the arrow of time. All I supposedly was saying to this person is that stars make heavier elements. Yes, that caused me some frustration.
What I see in this group of, I would guess, wannabe scientists, is extreme intolerance of the sort one would associate with blaspheming a religion. I have nothing against various religious views, but if your perspectives on science occupy a religious dimension, then, whatever you may be, you are certainly not scientists. You cannot tolerate my point of view. That much is clear. I don’t honestly care whether you can tolerate what I see and am pointing out or not. And I do point it out and I do so clearly and it is very interesting to anyone who doesn’t cling to the conventional perspective the way a shrieking infant clings to a Teddy bear. Histrionics are not reason.
You haven’t blasphemed science. You haven’t said anything remotely controversial. You’ve merely pointed out a facile observation that has been common knowledge for many many years, and somehow, when we all fail to realize whatever importance you’ve built up in your brain, we’re all just closeminded and thin skinned or whatever.
No one’s mad at you. No one is afraid of your radical opinions. They’re just boring. If you have something interesting to say, let’s hear it.
This guy is just looking for attention. He’s been posting(pasting) the OP all over the internet:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles...ource=activity
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/fo…=0&#entry51577
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/th...ble&post_num=1
Reply With Quote
Yes he has been pasting it all over the internet, because he wants to get the idea out there. We hate him! =)
Are you going to ignore everything I said, again?
kaneslatranz, you have a warped perspective on what we’ve been discussing. Please, get a grip.
Like Smeghead said, you’re bringing nothing new, or of interest to the table. You say we’re wanna be scientists, but what scientific method have you ever applied? You come here with convoluted ramblings and a fantasy game to support your arguments, and just when we think we understand you, that you’re essentially drawing conclusions that have been obvious to all of mainstream science, you get all huffy about “show me where in the world it’s ever been mentioned!”
We supply links and more discussion to try and make sure we’re getting what it is you have to say. Then you come back, basically ignoring everyone and have a hissy. Just because you’re using emoticons, doesn’t mean we can’t read between the lines.
Do you believe Entropy is some sort of deity or driving force in the universe? Something above and beyond chance? If so, what’s your hypothesis?
Until you have a point to debate, you’re just spinning your wheels here, and getting egg on your face in the process.
Hello all. First off, you got me good with the fact that thing I posted is apparently connected to a role playing game. :smack: Absolutely no 2 ways about it that kicks my ass. Kudos unto you with no sarcasm intended.
As for people being or not being angry, well, I wont apply it across the board but there have been some displays of anger, which is going to happen sometimes but has no place in an intelligent discussion. Anger does not illuminate. It only darkens perception.
I still believe in my observation, although I sorely regret having posted that damned thing from the role playing game. 
I have been admonished repeatedly for in effect making a big deal out of something Carl Sagan injected into public consciousness already. While I had not credited him specifically for this, in my original post I did not claim that I had made the observation that we are star stuff. “It’s established in the scientific picture that stars produce the stuff that earth and life are made of.”
What I do point out is that the process of stars forming the elements of life also happens to be by definition entropy within the context of the star, the aging of the star, and I have found repeatedly, here and elsewhere, that while people see stars producing these elements as an evolutionary process, many of them clearly don’t make the connection that this very process of producing these elements is the aging and increased entropy of the star. In addition to that the death of a star is itself entropy and is the progression toward the heat death. As I point out in my original post, I don’t believe that I can be the only person to connect the fact that we are star stuff with the heat death as a whole in progress. Did Carl Sagan or anyone else ever point out that the heat death itself then makes life possible? You act as though this is painfully obvious. Perhaps if you’re an astronomer it is but it is not to a lot of people. That is the crux of my observation and I think it’s interesting and, science forbid, even nice, that this nasty business of the heat death can be seen from that angle. If that bothers you as it appears to, or seems pointless, so be it. I would think in fact that if that is your feeling you could always move on and not waste your time on this thread. Yet even as I am told that it’s pointless I am told that it would be more interesting to write about how gravity or respiration makes life possible. I would disagree in that if anything is obviously life sustaining it would be those things rather than entropy itself.
This is not intended as a scientific thesis, but a connecting of dots that I have not seen made. How is that a problem, or wrong, or pointless, honestly?
It has been awhile since I have looked into it, but on the apoptosis what I had seen so far is that the jury appeared to be out on whether that involves entropy. To me, applying the arrow of time, it seems irrefutable, and I think that the uncertainty over it probably connects with a general tendency of people not to want to see entropy as, itself, a creative force. Someone on here pointed out that I was wrong about entropy as it applies to topsoil because it will not continue indefinitely, to which I pointed out that I never said it would go on forever and that I have said that all forms are finite. This to me suggests again a person in essence instinctively rejecting any notion that entropy facilitates life. So I am seeing something that not everyone sees, thus meaning that there is a point to what I am saying.
My general feeling about evolution is that it makes far more sense to me that complexity and life occur with the grain of nature as a general thrust rather than as a purely random chain of events. I suspect that a lot of where I get into trouble with what I originally wrote might be in tying it in to that. This puts a different spin on what to many is simply a background of disorder, some present company excepted, perhaps. I do think that if you view evolution as happening in spite of entropy rather than because of it and in tandem with it, as some people clearly do, than you view a universe much more hostile to complexity and life than what is actually there.
I still see this odd mixture of people disagreeing with what I am pointing out, and people saying that it’s so obvious as to be pointless, sometimes from the same people. That has happened here and elsewhere. Once again I don’t see how it can be, both, incorrect, and pointlessly obvious.
The bottom line of this is that I am pointing out that what is credited to Sagan also means that the heat death makes life possible, and I point it out because I think it is an interesting and even somewhat uplifting angle on the heat death scenario.
If that is pointless to you, which is fine, maybe there is no point in concerning yourself with it and spending time on this thread? If on the other hand like myself you think it is interesting, or if you think I am in error, then I could see why you would be here.
Look at it this way. What would be a more interesting question for Cecil? Does respiration make life possible? Or does the heat death make life possible?
kaneslatranz, if you make any more comments like this I will lock this thread.
Alrighty.
It doesn’t. Heat death is just a consequence of the apparent fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds universally. The two are not the same thing. But anyway, I’ve already posted 2 examples that show that neither the 2nd law nor heat death are required to hold for life as we know it to exist.
So, I’m going with “you’re confused, wrong, or just unable to clearly state whatever you’re trying to claim”.
All right. Well, I eventually managed to figure out what you’re saying. If that’s what’s got your mental wheels spinning, good on you, I suppose. Someone give me a holler if anything more interesting pops up in here.
Hello. I disagree. As I think I spell out pretty clearly, the death of stars, (As we all now know to be credited to Carl Sagan) makes life possible. The death of stars is also the heat death in progress. Therefore, whatever alternative evolutionary models you might suggest, in the way it appears to work in nature, I don’t see any logical flaw in the statement that this death of stars which is the heat death in progress also has resulted in earth and life en route to the heat death.
Well said.
I quote myself from post #42:
Do you see what I was saying here? It’s not necessary for the increase of entropy to hold universally, and neither is it necessary for the universe to end with a heat death in order to have even our kind of life. All we need is a system where it’s locally true.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, because the straightforward interpretation of it is wrong. For almost every system, entropy is directly proportional to temperature. A loss of heat, which reduces temperature, will decrease the entropy of the system losing the heat.
Among physicists, it’s so common as to be trite. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are often parodied as:
0th: There’s a game.
1st: You can’t win the game.
2nd: You can’t break even either.
3rd: You can’t quit.
I’m sure you can google up multiple variations.
In other words, you’re not taking it far enough. It’s not special or interesting that life increases entropy (I think that’s what you’re talking about) or depends on the results of entropic processes. Everything increases entropy. And everything that exists now is a product of some previous increase of entropy. It’s inescapable, just like there’s a universal speed limit.
I don’t know your background, but I’d say maybe your physics prof needed to pound into your head the meaning of the laws a little harder. 
And, so what? You seem to give a lot of negative weight to the idea of the universe coming to a deep freeze. As if it’s a nihilistic point of view. If it happens to be the case, there’s no inherent negativity or anything… it just is the way it is.
You seem to be searching to put a very positive human spin on a very cold* and indifferent universe, as if however you can manipulate your perceptions will somehow change reality itself.
Past precedence shows you’ll not answer any simple question I present to you, but hell, I’ll try again: What is the importance of your perceived insight here?
*cold, as in unfeeling, or distant