Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Lee Oswald Ving <leeoving@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:01:56 GMT
"Kant" <Kantis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:090Ve.34$zw2.1190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some
> agency or power
I'm willing to bet you've even got a three-letter word for that "power or
agency", starting with "G".
> outside and independent of the natural
You, of course, mean "current" instead of natural, since we have no idea
what the landscape looked like preceding this universe.
Right?
> universe.
That's funny.
I could have sworn the actual conclusion was "came into existance before
the Big Bang."
You know, the first moment in history we have concrete evidence for.
"We" including you.
> Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy-
....without converting it from other mass and/or energy.
Forget that part, did you? Very convenient.
> the relatively simple
Would you, please, give us a link to your complete model of the "simple"
systems inside a star?
Thanks.
> inorganic portion of the universe-then it is even
> less likely that natural processes can produce the much more complex
> organic (or living) portion of the universe.
Complete non-sequitur. You skipped from the origins of matter and energy
to the transformation of such.
.
- References:
- The first Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Kant
- Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Kant
- The first Law of Thermodynamics
- Prev by Date: Re: The universe looks designed to me
- Next by Date: Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- Previous by thread: Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- Next by thread: Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading