rationalskepticism.org

AMR wrote:
Sure there would be kinetic energy associated with a "big bang". Prior to the findings on 1A supernovae debate centered over whether or not this kinetic energy was sufficient for a "flat" universe, where the rate of expansion would be slowed inexorably by gravity or if the gravitational mass of the matter of the universe would re-collapse a "closed" universe.

What are you going on about? I simply said that kinetic energy and gravity explain the movements of cosmic bodies in relation to each other. Stop muddying the water.

AMR wrote:
The range of gravity is, so far as I know, infinite, so everything is gravitationally "linked", every particle in the universe should play a role in slowing the universe's expansion;

Again, not what I was talking about. When I said gravitationally linked I meant close enough to each other so that gravity can overcome expansion. Cosmic bodies that are gravitationally linked sufficiently do not conform to the same accelerated dispersal do to expansion as bodies distant enough from each other to have a negligible link. What I was saying, and if you understand anything about cosmology and expansion you would have known what I was talking about, is that gravity holds certain systems together and overcomes this expansion of space where distance is concerned. Systems such planet moon systems, solar systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters.

AMR wrote:
you mean objects not gravitationally "bound" are driven apart by Dark Energy.

No, I mean that cosmic bodies not sufficiently tied together by gravity will drift apart with the expansion in the space that they occupy. Even though they are getting father apart they are not moving farther apart.

AMR wrote:
Also if Dark Energy is the virtual particle generating vacuum energy then empty space posseses kinetic energy which is driving the acceleration of the universes expansion.

Just how did you jump to that conclusion?

AMR wrote:
Ok, so far as I know this is a totally new theory proposed by you. One obvious objection would be that the heat loss of matter would be totally insufficient to account for Dark Energy

I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space. The universe began at 10^29 degrees Kelvin. The ambient temperature of the universe today is 2.76 Kelvin. Where do you think that all of that energy in the form of heat went? With no surrounding environment, because the universe is an isolated system, for this heat to wick away, what would be your explanation? Mine is that with every cubic centimeter of space created by expansion it becomes more spread out and so diluted and empty space gets cooler as expansion increases.

AMR wrote:
(recall ~70% of the mass-energy of the universe and growing). So how can the slow cooling of the universe's 2.725 +/- 0.002 degrees Kelvin background temperature from he remaining Dark Matter (~25%), and ordinary matter (~5%, galaxies are 0.0001 K warmer than cosmic background) drive AN ACCELERATING RATE OF EXPANSION?

Did I say that cooling drives expansion? I did not. I said that your hypothesis that energy being added from outside the system would negate the cooling.

AMR wrote:
The fact that the 1st Law is being questioned doesn't affect the 2nd Law, which is in fact more fundamental than the 1st Law.

They go hand in hand, but at maximum entropy and a universal temperature of absolute zero the 2nd law disappears, but the 1st law still applies.

AMR wrote:
No, the reverse of what you are imputing to me, the quote in question is "the second law of thermodynamics is unaffected by the existence of vacuum energy".
This is because "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

That is all well and nice, but it does not say that the 2nd law is overturned or does not apply, it says that it is unaffected. Thanks for one more Wiki link that has nothing to do with your assertion. And more thanks for providing a link that tells me what I learned in 8th grade science class.

AMR wrote:

I never questioned the 2nd Law, but now that you raise the subject of entropy I'd like to raise another objection to Dawkins' reasoning that began this long thread. Entropy is a measure of randomness.

Not quite, in a maximum entropy environment nothing is random because all things are the same, and no mater which way you rotate the system, or which part you exchange for another the new system is indistinguishable from the old system. This describes the singularity in big bang theory. But lest you take this to mean that the universe began with maximum entropy, and so no increase in entropy can follow, I will have to point out that at the instant of the “Big Bang” entropy plunged to a minimum state and has been increasing overall since then. Why? Heat loss which causes increasing entropy, and follows the 2nd law.

AMR wrote:
Dawkins reasons that a less random or more complex state is rarer than a less complex or more random state.

In regards to a “creator” of the universe yes.

AMR wrote:
[However, if entropy of a system can only increase with time, can never be decreased -- a point I believe you have already acknowledged on this thread -- whatever force which gave rise to the universe must have had an even lower state of entropy -- meaning even more rare or improbable

You are assuming that some “force” gave rise to the universe, and I am assuming that you mean some sort of intelligent creator. You are also assuming that complexity cannot arise naturally from simplicity.

AMR wrote:
In other words Dawkins logic goes nowhere towards resolving the cosmic origin question;

Yes it does. Positing a some kind of an intelligent creator that is less complex than what it cerates is what is illogical.

AMR wrote:
presumably both theist and atheist must acknowledge a higher order or even less probable state of affairs.

Not me.

Oldskeptic wrote:
The difference between you, I, and people like Hackenslash is that we at least try to understand what we are talking about, and speaking for myself make an effort to verify that what I assert is backed up by real science.

AMR wrote:
Whoa, get off your high horse. For someone yet to provide some -- any --kind of reference for your evolving pub-crawling microbe why don't you practice what you preach viz. "make an effort to verify that what [you] assert is backed up by real science."

Yes, you are right. I couldn’t find anything on the internet about this piss eating organism and I said that in the beginning I believe. Because the article that I read was some years ago. What you are forgetting is that what I was talking about was the fine tuning argument gone haywire. And I did back it up with real science by citing other extremeophiles in similar sorts of situations.

This has nothing to do with your ignorant or intentional misuse of science.