Evolution Fairytale Forum

# Enoch 2021

Veteran Member

1,423

73

1. ## A Conversation With Enoch

So the EXPERIMENT that Validates "gravity" is responsible for attracting then holding GASSES (The Atmosphere) to the Earth --- Violating the Laws of Entropy and ground squirrel level reasoning is... 1) the weight of an empty CO2 fire extinguisher vs the weight of a full one. 2) The weight of an empty scuba tank vs the weight of a full one. 3) The weight of an empty nitrogen tank (used by race crews to power tools at the track) vs the weight of a full one. And lol, since these are 'Experiments' (according to you and your cohorts), Please Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and identify the Independent and Dependent Variables for EACH...? And can you please tell us the difference bewteeen a "Closed System" ( CO2, Scuba, and Nitrogen TANK) and an "Open System" (Earth and THE ATMOSPHERE) --- My Argument, Mr. Straw Man Fallacy...? And we're still waiting for you to show us The Walls and ROOF for your claim: "Earth is the Container"...? regards
2. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Maybe cause it has more "stuff' in it. I was responding to this trainwreck... paisan: "Gravity attracts matter toward the center of the planet .... including any gas.' Pretty much the same trainwreck your proffered earlier in this thread, then....WHOLESALE DODGED quite a number of times !!! "ALWAYS" --- unless it's Physically Hindered --- it's called the Laws of Entropy, Gilligan. Really?? And...., Go ahead? You kinda have to know what something 'is' BEFORE you claim it's responsible for something else. If not, you're simply extrapolating off an Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy). 1. False Analogy Fallacy 2. We're not interested in 'descriptions' ---that which Equations (Math) @ Best are only capable of, we're interested in EXPLANATIONS. Any idiot can 'describe' something. 3. Math (Equations) don't/can't 'PREDICT' anything They could, because all you have is a Fairytale Equation... If all you have is the "Mathematical Form" supporting that it's " GRAVITY " (5 - 3 = 2 ), then how do you know, it's not: " Duccolslopelgerts " (6 - 4 = 2), " Kinichifucolsloms " (7 - 5 = 2), " Wiggleytiggleyskurts " (8 - 6 = 2) ad infinitum that's ACTUALLY at play in lieu of "Gravity"....? Moreover, that "Mathematical Form" (Newtonian Gravity) that you're 'Stage 5 Clinging To' has been relegated to dust bin of History... For the 10th Time... "Einstein created his general theory of relativityâ€”which provides our modern understanding of gravityâ€”with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientifi...ge-nonlocality/ AGAIN, Define NOT ...? Furthermore, to stay ON TOPIC...Can you show GASSES (Nitrogen, Helium, Hydrogen, Methane ect) being attracted toward Earth at a rate of ~9.86 m/s^2 ...???? regards

4. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Yes Well prior to your Feeble Diversion and hammering the c4 fire with: the same way you can have water pressure without a container" my point was 'gravity' (Whatever that is, lol) has no attractive affect on GASSES. 'duh' You can't have WATER PRESSURE there Gilligan...without a Container EITHER. my word Goodness gracious. regards
5. ## A Conversation With Enoch

and then you call me silly. Can you show the Walls and Roof...? Right, so... Please post the Experiment that Validates your claim...? (Citation Please) i.e., Post The Formal Scientific Hypothesis; then Highlight the "Independent" and Dependent Variables...? 1. Begging The Question Fallacy x 2: 'gravity' and 'gravity attracts'. 2. Any GAS, eh? So what about: Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Helium, Methane ect...??? 1. Begging The Question Fallacy x 2: 'gravitational force'. 2. 'gravity' is not a "FORCE", young SkyWalker. SEE: George Musser and your 'scientific community'. regards

7. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Ahhh, no I don't think that (lol). And... How can it... since you said, StormanNorman--- "water pressure without a container". Errr.... a Liquid "Water" ALWAYS conforms to the shape of it's container. So how can you have Water Pressure... without a Container ?? Absolutely Unbelievable Isn't the Balloon, Errr....the Container?? So again, How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? my word sir
8. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Errr... is Water a Liquid?? THEN... "A liquid is a nearly incompressible fluid that conforms to the shape of its container." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid And... "The *PRESSURE OF A GAS* is the force that the gas exerts *on the walls of its container.*" http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html So I say again... How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? regards
9. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Oh, I can't 'weight'. The only question is, will it rival your Entropy, Scientific Hypothesis - Independent Variable, Time, EinsHsteinan, Light Speed, ect... stupefying trainwrecks of the past ?? The 1600's called, they want their arguments back!! Pssst... "Einstein created his general theory of relativityâ€”which provides our modern understanding of gravityâ€”with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientifi...ge-nonlocality/ Newton himself wasn't exactly enamored/married to the idea... In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb. 25th, 1692, Isaac Newton says: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact... â€œThat gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52 I do believe, Sir Isaac is calling into question your mental faculties sir. Why are you attempting to "EXPLAIN" something with a De-Bunked idea that your very own "Scientific Community" pays no mind to ?? AND, we're not looking for 'Descriptions', we're looking for EXPLANATIONS !! What Experiment ?? Begging The Question Fallacy: 'gravity', Validate this first!! And what CAUSES "MASS"...? Profound!!! Have you submitted this to the Nobel Committee yet?? I have a Feeling Great Googly Moogly!!! What's the gas "attracted to"...the Scale ?? What happens to the "MASS" if we remove Fjuri's ball (Container) ?? ps. Yes, this DOES "Rival' your other stupefying trainwrecks !! (Which I didn't think was possible). regards and oy vey
10. ## A Conversation With Enoch

It wasn't an experiment (LOL), it was the clumsiest Non-Sequitur Fallacy I've heard in some time, congrats!! A juvenile explanation of a "duh" scenario; Basically... A. You have a ball with some amount of air....you weigh it. B. Then you add some more air...you weight it. The Ball weighs more in B, Therefore: 'Gravity' affects GASSES !!! Essentially, A. I have some marbles in a bag...I weigh it. B. I put some more marbles in the bag...I weight it. Since B weighs more, French Toast is better than Pancakes. You call that tear jerkin belly laugher above an Explanation?? AND, You have another BIG Problem... "Einstein created his general theory of relativityâ€”which provides our modern understanding of gravityâ€”with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/ Newton himself wasn't exactly enamored/married to the idea... In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb. 25th, 1692, Isaac Newton says: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact... â€œThat gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52 I do believe, Sir Isaac is calling into question your mental faculties sir. Why are you attempting to "EXPLAIN" something with a De-Bunked idea that your very own "Scientific Community" pays no mind to ?? LOL, How bout on these Gasses: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane ?? This isn't a Scientific Hypothesis, Gilligan. It's a Begging the Question Fallacy, Declaration. So "The EFFECT" ( Dependent Variable ---"Prediction" ) is "gravitational pull". "The CAUSE" (Independent Variable) of gravitational pull is PRESSURE ?? It's not even coherent !!! You also need to call Sir Martin Rees and tell him that YOU have the answer to what CAUSES gravity... Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/astrophysicist: "WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assembleâ€”on at least one planet around at least one starâ€”into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the â€œend of scienceâ€ being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest." {emphasis mine} http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.html Can you please post the content of that discussion?? (After Professor Rees is resuscitated from laughing to near death!!) Apparently: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane, ect... didn't get the Memo And 'gravity' is NOT a Force, Young Skywalker. Begging The Question Fallacy: "gravity working" -- is what you have yet to VALIDATE! Just because things "weigh" more when we add more of the same things, doesn't Ipso Facto grant you warrant to state " The 'gravity' force' " by mere Fiat, professor!! I say it's duccolslopelgertzz That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what George Musser just told us. (SEE above: "Magic", Invisible "Force", ect) Oh and you forgot these... Then for fun: 1. How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? 2. And, @ what speed does the atmospheric gases have to be "Spinning" @ 300 miles above the equator (Thermosphere) if the equator is "Spinning" @ 1037 mph...? Please show the "Mechanism" i.e., Please elucidate the specific type of INTER-MOLECULAR BONDS between the Gases (LOL) AND between the Gases and Rotating Solid availing this feat of Preposterous Ludicrous Contradictory Absurdity --- from the Black Lagoon...? regards
11. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Where's the 'gravity' part?? And which one--- Newtonian or EinsHstienian ?? Ahhh: 1. What Causes Mass...? Errr... Mass doesn't = 'gravity'. And.... Mass and Weight are 2 Different Animals...but I'm sure you already knew that. 2. So for clarity: The Formal Scientific Hypothesis is....? Independent Variable.....? Dependent Variable....? Then show how your Non-Existent Hypothesis reveals 'gravity' stage 5 clinging to the atmosphere (all levels)...? Then for fun: 1. How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? 2. And, @ what speed does the atmospheric gases have to be "Spinning" @ 300 miles above the equator (Thermosphere) if the equator is "Spinning" @ 1037 mph...? Please show the "Mechanism" i.e., Please elucidate the specific type of INTER-MOLECULAR BONDS between the Gases (LOL) AND between the Gases and Rotating Solid availing this feat of Preposterous Ludicrous Contradictory Absurdity --- from the Black Lagoon...? Thanks in advance.

13. ## Proving A Negative

An interesting twist...Very Well Played Then have a Billboard @ each station a promoting a Contest: 'Define the "Scientific Theory" of evolution'...guess how many different answers you'd get ? I doubt they would rival the BLANK sheets of Paper . The winner gets an imitation fossilized Finch Beak! regards
14. ## Proving A Negative

The Absence of evidence isn't evidence of Absence; HOWEVER (and that's a BIG 'however')... when it is 'reasonable' to expect evidence, and there is NONE, THEN the Absence of evidence IS evidence of Absence. That brings up something funny, I told this guy the other day that TIME is not "Physical"...he said PROVE IT !! I said, Post the Chemical Formula and location of "Time"...? He ignored that retort right quick and said I couldn't 'Prove it'. Then I said the Absence/Non-Existence of the Physical attributes of 'TIME' is THE EVIDENCE of the Absence of the Physical Attributes of TIME. (lol) That was a 'Bridge Too Far' for him. regards
15. ## America's Changing Religious Landscape

Really?? Well go ahead and post the definition...? And the amount of TIME spent 'in something' doesn't offer any veracity whatsoever to your knowledge of it. Heck, just look @ evolutionary biologists...they haven't the first clue what evolution even is!! So? People 'SAY' alot of different things. What on Earth?? Ahhh, God is not an 'OBJECT'. And there wouldn't be 'OBJECTS' EXISTING in the first place without a "KNOWER" First. Well Atheism is a 'Belief'---"A Concept", so it doesn't SAY anything because 'Concepts' aren't alive and don't have Vocal Chords; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. It's quite apodictic that the foundational tenet of Atheism is that the Physical/Material World is all that exists. A Supernatural Atheist rivals Married Bachelors. Sure. Ahhh Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get the Human; then, the Human Mind?? Can you please post the Chemical Structure of the "Mind"...? That's why we LUV YA, your OCD like attention to excrutiating detail !! (And your Incessant Affinity to Straw Man Fallacy your opponents into Oblivian !!) Gilligan, I never said or even remotely implied that "NOTHING" exists outside Human Counciousness. I CITED this... "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151. https://www.scientif...197911_0158.pdf And as I said previously, God is not an OBJECT--- " MATTER ". And my argument is " MATTER " doesn't exist without "A Knower"... â€œThe atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160 Sir Rudolph Peierls PhD Nuclear Physics.... "The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {emphasis mine} The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 So when you decide to get to the ACTUAL ARGUMENT --- in lieu of the clumsy incoherent trainwrecks (Fallacies) you proffer, you make sure and let us know, mmm K? Yes, with 100% Certitude. And can SUPPORT it EMPIRICALLY till the cows come home. Both are TRUE, Mr. False Dichotomy Fallacy. What is 'my version' of QM...? Then, your feeble appeal implies 'other' versions eh? Post the 'other versions' --- And SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for each --- to SUPPORT your ongoing --- @ Light Speed, trainwreck....? regards
16. ## Does Evolution Violate Natural Law/abiogenesis?

I never said that it didn't 'RELATE', and in fact showed it's RELATionship... Gibbs Free Energy: It also Explicity states as much in the Citation I provided... "The word entropy is sometimes confused with energy. Although they are related quantities, they are distinct. http://www.nmsea.org..._is_entropy.htm There is no 'Other' meaning, just ONE meaning...and it's in the Citation above. regards

18. ## Objective Of Discussion

It's not. (If you wanna see a REAL TEXTBOOK Straw Man (Fallacy) go review your trainwreck treatise on Entropy). Nobody said it EXPLICITLY, but it surely was heavily IMPLICIT... "Wouldn't he point out that those are just "mathematical models" constructed with "what we know from physics and astronomy"? If somebody wrote a book about "A MAN", but never actually called him a man, but wrote: " HE, son, grandson, bachelor, male, ect ..." even though "MAN" was never written EXPLICITLY can we reasonably conclude the IMPLICIT ?? This isn't a Straw Man Fallacy either. SEE response directly above: IN TOTO. Well: hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, sockets, are tools used to construct Bicycles; yet, neither individually (or collectively)... are Bicycles. regards
19. ## Proving A Negative

2 - 4 = - 2 And (lol particularly hard), "You can't Prove a Negative" is ITSELF... "A NEGATIVE"; Ergo, if you could prove the statement true, it would inherently be FALSE !! This is "Parroted" and quipped incessantly without the least bit of scrutiny; the ACTUAL Argument is: "You can't disprove Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacy)". e.g., Dark Matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole. Disprove IT! If not, Therefore... it must be TRUE!! regards

21. ## Does Evolution Violate Natural Law/abiogenesis?

Huh?? ... "The word entropy is sometimes confused with energy. Although they are related quantities, they are distinct. As described in previous sections, energy measures the capability of an object or system to do work. Entropy, on the other hand, is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. What "disorder refers to is really the number of different microscopic states a system can be in, given that the system has a particular fixed composition, volume, energy, pressure, and temperature. By "microscopic states", we mean the exact states of all the molecules making up the system." http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_entropy.htm Save for the Fairytale "Just-So" Story of Abiogenesis. Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy: we're discussing "so-called" PRE-Life, before Life --- Abiogenesis. Of course there's no problem with 2LOT once you already have "LIFE" Existing. Why? Well, You already have the SPECIFIC Energy Converter (i.e., Mitochondria/Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways --- Read "Functional Proteins") and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING so as to capture, convert, and use the energy meaningfully. Without the SPECIFIED Energy Converter and Information Program, this (among numerous other ROADBLOCKS) is your Huckleberry... Gibbs Free Energy: The reactions to form Nucleosides then Nucleotides ( "Functional" DNA/RNA) and AA's ---> "Functional" Proteins are DeltaG "POSITIVE" --- Non-Spontaneous --- Endothermic (H +), and (S - ) .... "If a reaction is unfavorable for both enthalpy (H > 0 ) and entropy (S < 0 ) changes, then the reaction will be NON-Spontaneous at any Temperature." https://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/tutorialnotefiles/gibbs.htm This is the only Pathway you have... Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words after more than 50 Years of OOL Research... "However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on â€œif pigs could flyâ€ hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help." Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018 Stop back when you're ready to discuss the ACTUAL ARGUMENT and "Pigs Start Flying". regards
22. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Let's keep it simple for you, Do you understand, that... "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html "The only way things change in Physics is Experiments. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKPLfZ9JVQ So for the 8th Time(!!) lol, Show ONE Experiment where the Fairytale Begging The Question Fallacy---"Just-So" Story 'gravity', has any affect WHATSOEVER on Gasses...? You know, to SUPPORT your claim. Thanks! ( I suppose we shouldn't hold our breath @ this point, eh? )
23. ## A Conversation With Enoch

Complete Mis-Spelling: It's Non-SequitUr. Perhaps if you could spell the words you use correctly, it might lend a little more credulity to the CONJURED Baseless 'bare' Ipse Dixit Assertions (Fallacies) you incoherently toss out here in lieu of coherent replies. So you're saying the definition of Entropic Force (below) is Out-Of-Context ?? ... Entropic force is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the tendency of a thermodynamic system to maximize its entropy. https://arxiv.org/ft...0/1310.4139.pdf Can you show where and how this is OUT-OF-CONTEXT for us...? lol 1. Argument to Age (Fallacy) 2. Would you like to "COHERENTLY" refute Professor Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics) with something more recent...? You know, to SUPPORT your feebly contrived (and executed) Innuendo here? So you're saying that 'gravity' is both a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory, eh?? Can you provide another example, like: The Theories of Thermodynamics...? I think you need to spend some time with what "PREDICTIONS" (and Basic Reasoning), as in the "SCIENTIFIC" Variety, mean; as opposed to recognition of Patterns and Regularities and 'clumsily' calling them Scientific "Predictions". It's about as irrelevant as Hydrogen is irrelevant to Water For the 6th Time: Show ONE Experiment where the Fairytale Begging The Question Fallacy---"Just-So" Story 'gravity' has any affect WHATSOEVER on Gasses...? Then explain and illustrate WHY it doesn't affect these GASES: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane ect...? Nope. False Analogy Fallacy on Steroids: 1. When you're ENTIRE Position is based on a Specific Phenomenon --- that has as it's rationale --- a Fairytale Begging The Question ("Just-So" Story) for WHY the ball is dropping; then well...you have some issues. 2. In your little clumsily contrived Fallacy here...the Ball is dropping. The Actual Argument is "Gasses"; and pssst --- they're NOT "DROPPING" So, according to YOU, these are the only options (You MUST pick one, LOL): A. We have the Law of Gravitation (Newton) and Theory of Gravitation (Newton) --- which both are the Exact Same Statement. B. We have the Law of Gravitation (Newton) and the 'theory of gravity' (EinsHtien)--- which explains the WHY for Newton's Law. Meanwhile back @ the ranch... Clearly establishes that "EinsHstein and Newton's" Just-So stories are not only Mutually Exclusive but One (Newton's --- "Invisible Force")...is Crapola: "For instance, Einstein created his general theory of relativityâ€”which provides our modern understanding of gravityâ€”with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.--- (Is the 'recent' enough for you ??) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/ The tangled incoherent webs you weave, eh? 1. Well if you couldn't; then...it probably wouldn't be an 'Equation' then, now would it? (LOL) 2. You need to go back and review what Mathematics Is and Isn't. (Pay special attention to the: "Physics is not Mathematics" part. An Independent Variable is "THE CAUSE" the Dependent Variable is "The Effect". Are you saying a Number "CAUSED" something ?? Well (Mr. can't even keep track of his own Argument--- mainly because you don't have one), the double slit experiment was presented in retort against your Ipse Dixit DECLARATION of Newtonian "Predictions"... popoi: "If Newtonian physics is such an awful approximation, how do you explain its remarkable success at predicting motion?" SEE The Relevance NOW ?? Incorrect McFly. I CITED the definition of "Entropic Force" from a Reference... Entropic force is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the tendency of a thermodynamic system to maximize its entropy. https://arxiv.org/ft...0/1310.4139.pdf 1. How does this not 'agree' with my assumption when...rotflol, I had no assumption on the definition of "Entropic Force" to begin with? 2. Your INANE appeal is referring to another point in the reference which I DIDN'T CITE, *** Clown. ERGO...is entirely irrelevant; A Clumsy Red Herring Fallacy from the Black Lagoon. Yea, 'duh'...for about 10 posts now since you made the Baseless Claim. It's not MY source. I never CITED the Mind Numbing Claim, McFly. However, since it appears you and they hold the same trainwreck position, Ya Ready??, (here we go again for the 7th TIME): Show ONE Experiment where the Fairytale Begging The Question Fallacy---"Just-So" Story 'gravity' has any affect WHATSOEVER on Gasses...? Then explain and illustrate WHY it doesn't affect these GASES: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane ect...? These Things : " " then a . --- to encapsulate the thought. Next topic: how to tie a bow. Gilligan, "Spontaneous Generation" and the term "Spontaneously" -- in a completely different thought is not Equivocating.(LOL) Ya SEE: Spontaneous Generation is: the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter. Spontaneous: Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus. e.g., His spontaneous kiss was received with enthusiasm by the girl. Do you have any semblance of a "Coherent" Substantive Argument or Position, by chance? oy vey