Given your statement here, you are directly referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is an intricate part of this law.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
My apologies. I thought, for some reason, that you were referring to Le Chatelier's Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium.
I agree, the second law of thermodynamics applies.
Firstly, the universe is an open system, not a closed system; therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply per its definition. Simply because of this fact, your entire thesis is invalid regardless of what I say from this point forward. For catabolic processes to occur, anabolic processes must assert themselves firstly. In other words, order must arise for disorder to occur. I'll keep repeating this statement until you finally understand this. Again, this sole statement disembowels your entire thesis forever and always, regardless of whatever subjective spin you wish to apply to it.
For disorder to occur, order must establish itself.
Although this is true, order does not generally establish itself. Work is required to create an ideal government, and to maintain it. Work is required to give birth, to make money, to acquire knowledge. On the other hand, natural consequences tend to degenerate these things. Miscarriages are becoming increasingly common, inherited deformities and diseases are as well. The US has, in essence, spent itself into a recession. Deterioration in nature has taken place ever-increasingly as well.
No. Before you start speaking out your ass, take a second to interpret my statement. Governments don't arise out of chaos; governments establish themselves through order. The opposite of a governing body is anarchy; given the world is no where near a pure state of anarchy, order has found a way to flourish. You stated the world always trends towards disorder. No, it does not. Governments fail; however, my point maintains itself; with this failing, more "perfect" governments arise. If you fail to believe this, simply wiki the Nordic Model. Life expectancy has exponentially increased over the last 100 years. This, in itself, is the exact opposite of your thesis. The drive for human betterment can be considered order. You are far over-simplifying something that is far more intricate than you lead on. For every fact you pick out, I'll pick out another contradicting it.Good and bad are relative terms. Your perspective is different from that of another. Aging isn't necessarily viewed as bad by select individuals. Governments degenerate, but again, this can be argued as something good. Without the degradation of such governments, democracy would never have come to fruition, which is viewed as good by many. One could even argue that the falling apart of governments is required to find the perfect surrogate body to maintain a society. I agree that death can result in the betterment of life, but I do not believe that a utopian society exists outside of Heaven (Our opinions would wrestle over this matter until the sun failed to rise, so lets not get into it). Because people are constantly flawed, therefore so are governments - such is life.
Your thesis said nothing of perfect order, merely disorder always following throughout life and the world. Well, my statement above contradicts this yet again...you agree in your own statement that order exists here, but, because it doesn't conform with your thought, you refute it because it is not "perfect" order. I'm sorry, King, but it is order none-the-less.To die, one must live, again, giving substance to my aforementioned statement -- for disorder to occur, order must establish itself. Is death "bad"? According to many religious individuals, it is merely a stepping stone in an eternal conscious (you, yourself believe this).
Although this is true, many religions fear death as an eternal darkness. An even greater number of religions see death as a bad thing because it is the end of ministry and conversion on earth. The longer a person (such as a Christian) lives, the more lives they can affect and the more people will be converted.
My point remains -- order has established itself, not disorder. Religions that adhere to reincarnation always contribute to order, whether they are born as an ant or a human, their role in life's progress ceases to extinguish itself -- continual order from disorder. If I were Hindu, I would make this point to discredit you. Again, the aforementioned isn't opinion of my own, but simply an alternate perspective that could pose as an orderly one. Basically, I've made an attempt to be objective, which you should have done before constructing this silly thesis.
What you are failing to realize here is your usage of the terms "good" and "bad" are completely subjective and may differ from the opinion of another. This argument holds no argument, simply.Your sister is brighter than you think.
Eh, no, she only believes that because a crazy history teacher told her that. Shes the type that would defend a thesis even if evidence of her wrongness was tattooed on her arm, just for the sake of being right.
Failing governments give rise to more perfect governments.
Better, not more perfect. Possibly not even better. No utopia exists on earth.
Again, have you changed your thesis? The point is, order has been established.An aging dieing populous gives rise to an exponentially greater (and younger) populous through sexual reproduction (order acquired from disorder).
Well, in the extreme short term, this is true. The next generation is now more healthy than the last, but how healthy are they really? 66% of minorities inherit type 2 diabetes, 33% of majorities inherit it. It has increased close to 20% in both majorities and minorities since 1990. On top of this, birth complications are becoming far more common.
The generations of today are far less healthy than their ancestors. Life expectancy becomes increasingly shorter over time. At about 3339 BC, a man named Methuselah was born. He lived an unbelievably long life of 969 years before dying of natural causes. Today the life expectancy of women in the US is 80.8, and is 75.6 for men. That is a massive age difference in a relatively short period of time, especially for the Darwin-believing Atheist.
You are a ****ing idiot. Firstly, don't bring biblical references into any ****ing debate. Ever. This alone discredits anything and everything you will say from this point forward within any intellectual forum. No life expectancy has ever been validated anywhere near 1000 years old. I can't believe you made this statement, and for the sole purpose of trying to argue your thesis. I dare you to do this on a collegiate paper. Fat ****ing "F". Now, here come the facts: life expectancy has increased over the last 100 years due to an increase in sanitary conditions (plumbing), vaccines, the genetic modification of wheat (the staple diet of many third world countries), providing a greater nutrition/calorie ratio upon intake, etc. The increase in the world's life expectancy discredits this facet of, and, through extrapolation, your entire statement. Its hilarious how when I use religious belief against you, you defend it and say, well that is the belief of someone else. But when you attempt to utilize it for your argument's advantage, you pull scriptural "facts" to back your thesis. This is a terrible fallacy and, take my word, should never be done again. Fail, King.From the death of worlds and solar systems comes the rebirth of worlds and solar systems, giving rise, through UGLY PONIES I think it is comedic (and even cosmic) that this is the only non-vulgar censored word on these forums. a new populous (order). Which then deteriorates over millions of years.. o.O
Yea, your at a loss for words here, aren't you? Order must establish itself for deterioration to occur.With regard to relationships, pending on your own perspectives, disorderly conduct may give rise to a stronger love and an ever-increasing bond between one's partner. I myself am a testament to this statement. Currently in America, 45% to 50% of first marriages end in divorce. 60% to 67% of second marriages end in divorce. 70% to 73% of third marriages end in divorce. These are the highest divorce rates in the history of the world; relationships are failing more now than ever before.
On top of this, premarital sex in America is increasing and has been for decades. Currently, studies show that 9 out of every 10 Americans have had premarital sex. "Contrary to pop-culture wisdom, those who do choose to save sex for marriage are not doomed to a second-class sex life. Rather they typically report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and marital contentment. Moreover, early sexual experience has been linked to marital dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and greater incidence of Divorce" (Hooten). Not only is immorality increasing throughout America, but it is ruining more relationships than ever, both before and after marriage. Healthy relationships are becoming a thing of the past.
At this point, I'm just baffled at the idiocy of your argument. The sole fact that relationships, through hardship, maintain themselves is a testament to order prevailing, defeating your failure of a thesis yet again. Your closed mindedness on this matter is just unbelievable. SO WHAT; a divorce occurs. What if this divorce ends in these two individuals finding true happiness within another relationship? Do we simply stop at the first divorce? If one is content within their life, should we call this order? Should we gauge true disorder on the suicide rate? Surely, the vast majority of individuals don't commit suicide, so bring that statistic over to my side of the debate! You are drawing the line to what you perceive disorder and order to be. In other words, what you perceive good and bad to be. I made this point earlier. You allow your own subjective opinions, as evidence by your religious "facts" and what you perceive to be good and bad to corrupt your thinking and thus your thesis. You're far too subjective and too closed minded. You lack the objectivity to substantiate your thesis to the point of credulity. And, if you still fail to agree, then refer to the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. I for one, after viewing this rebuttal, refuse to comment further.You are being the narrow minded individual here, not your sister. You've yet to acquire the
holistic perspective required to understand such things by yourself. You still have a ways to go, King.
I believe I understand all that my thesis statement encompasses, I am not sure what else you are referring to.
Quote from: Xrow on December 12, 2010, 04:42:26 AM
Thesis statement:
Order has the tendency to transition towards disorder.
My argument:
Throughout the universe, no matter religion nor ethnicity nor race nor any other impartial factor, order has the tendency to degenerate towards chaos. This reality is seen everywhere in nature: life becomes death, new buildings become old and deteriorate, wealth becomes poverty.
Death becomes life, old buildings become new buildings, poverty becomes wealth.
An example of this is the Broken Window theory. In essence, the Broken Window theory states that if a broken window on a building is not promptly fixed, miscreants will converge over time and will break more windows.
Baby-->adult-->educated to skilled task-->window is created.
Without order (window tiler), disorder doesn't have the possibility to occur (window breaking).
In essence, if this were a closed system, none of us would exist to even have this conversation. In other words in an open system where the energy cycles can be used freely, order pervades itself only to become disorder and order once again. It is a never-ending cycle, of which, order always finds a way to substantiate itself over disorder -- our existence is testament to this fact (UGLY PONIES is a testament to this fact). The energy cycle is a testament to this fact. All metabolic and anabolic cycles are a testament to this fact, from the organic construction of Pyruvate through Glycolysis to the recycling of carbon through the Kreb's Cycle.
Discuss.
Thesis, butt****ed