h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The thread at F2016062?thread=599644&skip=0&show=20 seems to have unfortunately derailed into discussions of child abuse. In an effort to get back on topic, I'm bringing this here.

You've made, at the beginning of that thread, a number of claims to knowledge of a number of areas of science in which I have expertise and would like to discuss with you. However, I have attempted to discuss these things with creationists before, and have been disappointed to find that not one of them actually understood what it was they were saying.

Therefore, I've taken a few of the main points of what you have stated you're expert enough to comment on, and asked you to clarify your knowledge in simple terms.

For your convenience, I shall repeat them, in simple form:

1. State the laws of thermodynamics, and describe what entropy is and how it might be calculated.
2. What is the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, and why does it matter?
3. Give the balanced chemical equations for the reactions involved in photosynthesis, with Kekule diagrams where necessary.
4. State the main points of difference between plant and animal cells.
5. Is DNA made of chromosomes, or vice versa?

Please bear in mind that YOU brought these subjects up, not me.

YOU are the one taking up a position of supposed knowledge on these subjects. I seek to discuss these things with you, but can only do so meaningfully if you understand what you are talking about. I apologise for tarring you with the same brush as every other Creationist I've come across, but I'm afraid my experience suggests I can't trust you to have a clue what you even mean when you talk about complexity.

If someone claimed to be an authority on your Bible, would it not be reasonable to test their claim? And if you asked them where Jesus was born, and they said "I haven't got time to research the answer, I'm trying for promotion at work", wouldn't you write them off as a rather inept fraud who wasn't even competent to *pretend* to know things?

All these questions are, for someone who even superficially knows what they're talking about, answerable very quickly, to the point of being blindingly obvious.

Your rapid and extensive responses to my postings today have, between them, constituted more written material than would be required to answer all my questions to my satisfaction. You therefore clearly DO have the time.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

H.

Polite request to potential lurkers: please do not post in this thread. Ideally I'd like to keep it as on topic as possible, as I've only had to create it because another thread got derailed.

Thank you in advance.

H.

I refuse to answer these questions untill you apologise for that disgusting remark that you posted that upset most people on the board. I am sure you remember it-when you said that people who deny evolution are like paedophiles.

"that disgusting remark that you posted that upset most people on the board"

What is it with Christians and lies? "Most people on the board"?? Have you ANY idea how many people use this site? I know at least sixty of them by sight, just for starters. Active users must be well into the hundreds. Meanwhile, what I posted on that thread has only even been *seen* by about six people other than you and me, and one of those is actively laughing at it.

Also: "when you said that people who deny evolution are like paedophiles". I said no such thing.

Please, please, STOP LYING about what I said.

And if you want to take up with me about that, please do so on the appropriate thread, i.e. the other one. The whole point of starting this thread was to avoid getting derailed by irrelevant trivia. However, you have with your very first post gone off topic, so I'm very close to just giving up and writing you off as fundamentally unable to converse.

Please, prove me wrong.

H.

If the conversation got 'derailed' then you planted the charge on the line.

I find Creationism intellectually objectionable, and Conservatism morally so. However, I'd much rather have a conversation with GN than with you, Hoo. You're an intellectual bully, and if you didn't have an intellect I suspect you'd still be a bully. I'm sticking up for GN because I hate bullies far more than I dislike the views he holds. A troll that wraps itself in a labcoat is still a troll.

Go on, please PLEASE prove ME wrong.

How, exactly?

I've posted, politely enough, five simple questions. Instead of answers, all I'm getting is hysterical complaints about an opinion I expressed about *militant* creationists, people who are by definition trying to bully the educational establishment.

I have no idea at all whether Good_News falls into that category. I also have no idea at all whether Good_News has *any* idea whatever what he's talking about, because despite my repeated requests for simple answers to simple questions, he first dishonestly claims he hasn't the *time* to answer, then spends a good part of the next day trying to deflect attention away from his failure to provide any answers.

I'm desperately trying to keep this on topic, so as I've had to say once already, IF you have a problem with opinions I have expressed elsewhere, please address them elsewhere. If you bring them here, then I'm afraid what you're doing is trolling.

Still awaiting even ONE answer to the simple questions posed.

H.

‘In an effort to get back on topic, I'm bringing this here.’

You were the one who took it off topic with your disgusting remarks.

Also: "when you said that people who deny evolution are like paedophiles". I said no such thing. ‘I said no such thing.’

Really? Let’s have a look:

‘I meant that Creationists are AS BAD as paedophiles.’

‘I have given my carefully considered and logically argued reasons for making what I believe to be a valid comparison.’ If you consider my comparison of creationists with paedophiles to be inaccurate or invalid, then please, explain why.’

‘What I said was that those creationists who seek to impose their belief on impressionable children are the contemptible ones, the ones I equate to paedophiles,’


And you accuse me of lying!?! I have never seen such hypocrisy in my life. You really are a sorry state for a person. You don’t care about people and don’t understand anything about the victims of child abuse. You are unfeeling and a disgrace to humanity.


‘I have no idea at all whether Good_News falls into that category.’

Then stop making disgusting remarks about people you know nothing about.

‘If you bring them here, then I'm afraid what you're doing is trolling.’

No, what he is doing is standing up for common decency. What he is doing is defending victims of child abuse from people like you who wish to understate the abuse that they have suffered. What he is doing is defending the rights of people to hold an opinion without being bullied by the likes of you. That is not trolling. And thank you BH for showing me that not all Darwinists are as wicked as this man.


'Still awaiting even ONE answer to the simple questions posed.'
here is one and you will only get one untill you apologise:


1. State the laws of thermodynamics, and describe what entropy is and how it might be calculated.

The first law of thermodynamics is that one form of energy can be converted into another without any loss. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The Second law states that all energies can be converted into thermal energy but it is not possible to convert thermal energy fully back to its original form.

Entropy is the measure of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. It basically measures the disorder of a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy is increasing to a maximum.

It is very difficult to calculate entropy but it can be done and requires calorimetry.

Now, unless it is an apology, I do not want to speak to you again.

So when are you going to apologise for accusing *me* of abusing children by teaching evolution? When are you going to apologise to Jock Tamson's Bairn for the same thing?

"The first law of thermodynamics is that one form of energy can be converted into another without any loss."

Incorrect.

"It is very difficult to calculate entropy."

Incorrect. Entropy may be readily calculated from the equation

ds = dQ/T.

I require nothing further from you.

H.

'So when are you going to apologise for accusing *me* of abusing children by teaching evolution? When are you going to apologise to Jock Tamson's Bairn for the same thing?'


I never did. I said that by teaching the theory of evolution as a fact, you are making children lose faith in God.

That is not the same as saying you are like a child-rapist as some people here shout out.

<<>>

I think you will find it is correct.

'I require nothing further from you.'

Good. Because if I want to speak to a person with your kind of attitude, I will do it face to face with the local Celtic supporting bigots. And I think I would they would be more pleasent.

G-N: Your explanation of the 1st law of thermodynamics is incorrect but as I have seen that explanation stated on the 'net I can see why you may think it is correct. Do a web search for the law; look at numerous websites quoting the law; reassess your understanding of the 1st law and go to bed tonight realising you have learnt something.

Just one of the wonders of being a hootooer: you always learn something new.

Let's get the facts straight, shall we?

The word you used was "abuse". You said that teaching children evolution made the lose their faith, and that it was a form of abuse. I told you that I teach evolution, and asked if you were calling me a child abuser. You said that if I was teaching evolution, I was abusing children. I demanded an apology for this libel, you refused.

You did something similar to JTB, and he is also waiting for an apology.

Kiteman - could you direct me to the conversation this was on - interested to see it.

Ta

(I believe you btw)

Sorry, it's lost in the archives - if a BBC messageboard thread isn't posted to for 40 days, it disappears.

There are numerous trolls that make it their habit to wait until an argument they are losing fades away, ten they try again on a different tack. They think we don't realise.

'The word you used was "abuse". You said that teaching children evolution made the lose their faith, and that it was a form of abuse.'

I did not say that. I said that if you teach evolution as a fact to children then you will make them lose faith in God. I said nothing about abuse. JTB accused me of calling him a child abuser but they were his words, not mine.

However, it would be abuse if you ridiculed Creationist children in schools and bullied them for their beliefs.

'(I believe you btw )'


So much for the so-called scientific view of looking for evidence before making judgement...

Maybe Hoo or Alfster would like to post what they think the 1st law of thermodynamics is?

<>
(G-N)

When you say loss GoodNews...loss of what? ( I think I know what you mean but Hoo and Alf are being far too mean spirited and want to proove that they are they only ones who could possibly give a correct answer)

After all a Creationist couldn't possibly be correct. (sarcasm)

Alex.