Evolution isn't real and the Christian God created the universe

KdCuber

No one? I guess @jesusisGod777 isn't as smart as he thinks he is. 

jesusisGod777

No I just figured if you went to hell you'd realize how real it was.

However since the position above puts me at emnity with God the only reason I'll respond to this statement I because I care for God and the sake of knowing him, not you.

I'll propose my opening statement shortly.

KdCuber

I will prepare my scientific papers to cite. 

jesusisGod777

Opening Statement:

Evolution is theoretically impossible.

The opponent in the Debate assumes the following:

1. Backwards or retro-causation as the  universes existence is considered effectual, not caused by the opponent.

As a result, The opponent must explain T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry

T: t -> -t  and why the universe started with a low entropy if it had always existed or if energy is not subject to limitation as energy can spontaneously exist and is there by not proportional to an aggregate sum.

The opponent conditionally assumes that the universe did not have a beggining, as the opponent disregards that:

1. what lacks existence can be a potential effect of it's own existence as related to the cause and effect of human existence.

It is noted for the sake of logical reasoning in this debate that the opponents argument initially is fallacy as:

1. Anything that does not exist, does not have a potential effect on it's own existence.

As

2. before something exists, it's lack of existence effects the potential to be it's own cause.

It is easily grasped that anything that has no potential to effect a lack of existence, by lacking it's own, simply because it began to exist, is there by unattributed as it's own cause and effect.

The opponent assumes something can be it's own cause and effect despite the fact that non-existence and existence would therefore be categorized as mutually in express terms:

1.That which lacks existence is an effect.

Simply the base argument I present in this debate is:

Anything can not effect it's own lack of existence.

Therefore, based on the opponents view of cosmological existence the opponent does not agree with the fact:

1. the unit of time is the second (symbol: s)

As the universe did not have a beggining.

The opponent disagrees with the scientific assertion that the modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently depending on relative motion, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline.

The opponent disagrees with the assertion that The world line (or worldline) of an object is the path that object traces in 4-dimensionalspacetime although It is an important concept in modern physics, and particularly theoretical physics.

The opponent did not understand in the last debate that In quantum mechanics, the Planck time (tP) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units.

Apprently , for all of the theoretical physics the opponent seems to be aware of the opponent did not rationalize A Planck time unit is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44s.

The opponent therefore must explain how a vacuum can exist.

The opponent must additionally clarify how space in it's most arbitrary sense can exist.

Based on the opponents view of evolutionary biology, the opponent
insinuates that no future,  present, or past events occur or occurred to justify his argument and theory of evolutionary biology and cosmological existence.

The opponent intends to present cosmological arguments where although time does not exist, the opponent uses time to describe the length or rate of progression of evolutionary processes.

As such,

1. Time, is an irrelavent factor associated with the evolutionary theory of biological systems.

2. If the opponent uses time to explain the rate of progression for the evolutionary theory while effectually disregarding the universe had a cause,

3. The opponent concedes that backwards causation or retro-causation is impossible
And contradicts any initial conception of a universe where the universe had always existed or can be it's own effect as cause and effect are measured by T-symmetry by most scientists.

4. Should the opponent concedes that the universe had began to exist.

5. The opponent concedes the universe had a cause that is not subject to time, which is discussed later, should the opponent concede.

In summary,

Either the opponent concedes the universe had a beggining or the opponent must rationally justify why Einstein's theory of relativity along with the entire scientific communitys concept of physics must be disregarded, to explain the theory of evolution, where a universe does not begin to exist and further explain and justify how natural physics are related to the physical cause of the universe while disregarding and explaining how T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry can be disregarded.
.

As a final note, the opponent most likely disagrees with the physical definition of time:
A  scalar quantity in physics that can be described by a single element of a number field such as a real number, often accompanied by units of measurement as the opponent assumes that the universe did not begin to exist. 

if the opponent concedes that the universe began to exist the opponent assumes

1.There are no intermidate causes in the beggining of the universe, therefore contradicting that humans require a cosmological cause as all effects are unrelated to causes.

Considering,

2a.Outside of time there is no cause and effect

And

2b.If a cause is removed an effect is removed.

The opponent must give a detailed account of the big bangs THEORYs logical probability of causing a universe where the initial cause is effected by what the opponent can clearly describe as a natural physical cause.

God's existence:

The arguments that normally concerns God's existence are most formally asserted as a posteori nor a priori.

I'll however state the existence of God can be based on a priori.

The Posteori Argument.

1. That God's existence can not be demonstrated by a person who is not God.

2. Therefore God's existence is considered to be based on a posteori, what God causes as associated with his existence, a quia.

The argument is primarily concerned with:

1.What effects the knowledge of human cause or what effects the knowledge of God's existence.

I pre-counter any of the opponents claims as Christianity is based on Jesus Christ as evidence for God.

Therefore Jesus Christ being God effects the knowledge of human cause and God's existence.

2. A priori argument of this type determines that Human cause can be known as human cause is related to a single cause and therefore a single reality.

3.Therefore, effects that are known are what determine the knowledge of human cause is based on Jesus Christs omniscience and revelation and supporting documentation and evidence.

3a.the supporting evidence as it relates to Jesus Christ is God's ressurection by God the Father Yahweh.

The evidence is based on what proof did Jesus give for claiming to be God?the response is God did what people can't do.

- the seneatorial docket in Rome which bears the known seal of Pontius pilate includes statements by Pontius pilate where pilate states that he met the ressurected Jesus .

- the seneatorial docket in Rome includes the official seal of herod which states that Jesus is God.

-the seneatorial docket in Rome bears the seal of Ceasear Augustus who states he had pilate executed for crucifying God and that pilate ruined the world.

- a certified Lab test result tested a blood specimen sample from a cloth Jesus was assumed to be burried in. The summary analysis of the report determined Jesus was biologically born of a virgin lacking the Chromosomal segments from a human father that are the result of reproduction.

- a sanitized CIA document states that Noah's flood happened in the world. 

The opening statement disregards religion as fallacy, as religion or religious diversity inherantly suggest diversity in a world that has a single cause.

The debate does not recognize any truth in religion as if what charecterized religion was true there would be no religious diversity.

The opponents burden of proof:

The opponent must  prove how real-world information and what evidence is associated with the big bang theory solves the natural physical cause of the universe covering an explanation of cause and effect, not proposing theory's but evidence and leave no speculation or speculate evidence.

Therefore, any opposing argument is the difference between natural knowledge and conditional association.

To answer the question, of God's existence then, the effect ( Human life) must be used in place of the cause,
To which it is related.

I state,

A world created by God is completely possible

Where as,

A world not created by God is not possible as outside of time, a physical cause is fallacy as nothing physically existed and to effect, is of the essence of contradiction.

Anything that does not exist as a form of agency and has no control over it's own existence is subject to a non-physical cause as stated again what does not exist has no potebtial effect because it requires it's own cause.

I additionally state,

That God's existence is natural and that God's existence is the only form of existence that is natural in respect to not requiring creation.

I state,

That it is a fallacy where what requires a cause is associated to what does not to assert that God requires creation and that the difference between what does not, is rationally based on the above reasoning.

Summary of factual statements.

any effect is subject to it's own physical cause if it does not exist in the sense, that a physical outcome of existence requires a physical process whereas God's existence is super natural.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

The shorthand of my argument because your probably lazy is, 

Natural processes require a physical cause.

Rationally explain how a what requires a physical cause can be caused by a physical cause.

Jesus IS LORD.

KdCuber

The entire argument says pretty much "The opponent assumes, or the opponent disagrees" 

Where in my debate have I disagreed with Einstein Field Equations? Where? 

jesusisGod777

And don't tell me the physical cause always existed.

Either way you've already lost the debate.

You have two options and both counter arguments are logical fallacys.

Jesus is Lord.

KdCuber

Stating that the universe could not have started itself doesn't IN ANY WAY prove that the Christian god must have existed. 

KdCuber

You have only said that I disagree with scientific arguments in my opening statement, yet my opening statement doesn't state ANY of my opinions. It just asks the opponent to show EVIDENCE that god exists. Yet, the opponent hasn0t given any evidence for the God to exist. 
Indeed, there are so many fallacies with saying that a God must have created the Universe. 

Furthermore, there are countless arguments showing that a Christian God could not have existed. Firstly, here are some questions for creationists to answer:

-There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy. This still satisfies time reversal assymetry, and hence is a viable argument. 

- Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?

- At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?

- Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?

-The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older.

-Beauty lies in simplicity. Why would God create such complex creatures? For example, why do we have 10 fingers, and not 12 (arithmetics is much easier in base 12).

- Fossil records show that evolution is a FACT.

Furthermore, the opponent states that jesus is god, and that he knows the futures and decides who dies. 

That implies that anyone who has died was by decision of Jesus Christ. Isn't that just a DISGUSTING statement. Someone believes himself to be so great that he now is omnipotent, can make people suffer beyond anything you have ever experienced, just for FUN? 

You and your god are if you truly believe that making people suffer and die (sometimes horribly and VERY painfully) is OK. If your god truly were omnipotent and benevolent the great famine in Yemen wouldn't have happened. The Nanking massacre wouldn't have happened, nor the Holocaust. What about the Crusades? Do you truly think God dictated who died and who didn't? 

Women and children were RAPED in these historical events, do you think God really commanded these actions? 

If God really decides who lives and who dies, he is responsible for:
- The holocaust
- The great famine of yemen
- The Crusades
- Terrorist attacks
- The use of comfort women in ww2
- Armenian and Assyrian Genocide
- Rape of minors

and so much more. Why would an all-loving god decide to TORTURE people who supposedly praise him? If he really does exist, then he is a sadist who loves seeing people suffer, because that is what he does. 

KdCuber

"

- the seneatorial docket in Rome which bears the known seal of Pontius pilate includes statements by Pontius pilate where pilate states that he met the ressurected Jesus .

- the seneatorial docket in Rome includes the official seal of herod which states that Jesus is God.

-the seneatorial docket in Rome bears the seal of Ceasear Augustus who states he had pilate executed for crucifying God and that pilate ruined the world.

- a certified Lab test result tested a blood specimen sample from a cloth Jesus was assumed to be burried in. The summary analysis of the report determined Jesus was biologically born of a virgin lacking the Chromosomal segments from a human father that are the result of reproduction.

- a sanitized CIA document states that Noah's flood happened in the world. 

"

Too bad the first three aren't at all reliable sources from which we can conclude anything relevant. 

Furthermore, it has been disproven times and times again that Noah's flood couldn't have happened. It is genetically and mathematically impossible. I quote from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html:

Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

• Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
• Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
• Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
• Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

To determine how much space is required for animals, we must first determine what is a kind, how many kinds were aboard the ark, and how big they were.

What is a kind? Creationists themselves can't decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark "kind" must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:

• For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
• The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
• The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.

What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

• The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
• They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.

KdCuber

Furthermore, countless forms of technology now rely on evolutionary biology. Since this technolofy works, it follows that evolution must be a fact, and creationism is a hoax. 

KdCuber

"Either the opponent concedes the universe had a beggining or the opponent must rationally justify why Einstein's theory of relativity along with the entire scientific communitys concept of physics must be disregarded, to explain the theory of evolution, where a universe does not begin to exist and further explain and justify how natural physics are related to the physical cause of the universe while disregarding and explaining how T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry can be disregarded."

Evolution does IN NO WAY say that the universe does not begin to exist. 

KdCuber

"2a.Outside of time there is no cause and effect

"

Hence nothing outside of the universe could have caused it, and God could not have existed. 

KdCuber

"A  scalar quantity in physics that can be described by a single element of a number field such as a real number, often accompanied by units of measurement as the opponent assumes that the universe did not begin to exist. "
I do agree that the universe had a beginning, and that any obsservable's expectation value can be written in form of a real number accompanied by units of measurement.

The way we write measurements doesn't have anything to do with proving the Christian god exists and proving that evolution is false. 

KdCuber

The entire argument made by the opponent is completely irrelevant. The opponent has inserted random information that in no way proves that a Christian God exists, as demonstrated in earlier posts. Furthermore, the opponent failed to counter arguments that I have posted. 
The opponent simply stated (in 3 pages of useless information that could have summarized without loss of generality) as "The universe had a start, since time reversaility is assymetrical. Hence, the universe could not have started itself, and a Christian God must have therefore created the universe, and Humans as Homo sapiens. ". 

However, the opponent didn't show any empirical evidence nor data disproving evolution, or any data PROVING creationism and the fact that the Christian God created the universe as described in the Bible. Hence, the entire argument posed by the opponent is irrelevant, and unpersuasive. 

My points still stands:
"the opponent states that jesus is god, and that he knows the futures and decides who dies. 

That implies that anyone who has died was by decision of Jesus Christ. Isn't that just a DISGUSTING statement. Someone believes himself to be so great that he now is omnipotent, can make people suffer beyond anything you have ever experienced, just for FUN? 

You and your god are if you truly believe that making people suffer and die (sometimes horribly and VERY painfully) is OK. If your god truly were omnipotent and benevolent the great famine in Yemen wouldn't have happened. The Nanking massacre wouldn't have happened, nor the Holocaust. What about the Crusades? Do you truly think God dictated who died and who didn't? 

Women and children were RAPED in these historical events, do you think God really commanded these actions? 

If God really decides who lives and who dies, he is responsible for:
- The holocaust
- The great famine of yemen
- The Crusades
- Terrorist attacks
- The use of comfort women in ww2
- Armenian and Assyrian Genocide
- Rape of minors

and so much more. Why would an all-loving god decide to TORTURE people who supposedly praise him? If he really does exist, then he is a sadist who loves seeing people suffer, because that is what he does. "

KdCuber

Not only, the opponent also used arguments that have been historically proven to be false, as demonstrated in my posts. In conclusion, the opponent's argument is full of fallacies:
- Many irrelevant arguments, such as scientific notation and the way measurements are written, were used despite the fact that this was supposed to be a persuasive debate, not a debate on "who can write the longest". 
- Many arguments that have already been disproven, such as Noah's flood. 
- Many arguments that the oppoonent believed I didn't agree with, but that i instead do agree with were usede.g. I do believe that the universe had a beginning and that since entropy can't decrease time reversability is assymetrical. 
- Many arguments were based on severely unreliable sources, or supported by data that was collected millenia ago and has very large uncertainty ranges. 

It follows that the opponent's argument was futile and unpersuasive. No evidence supporting the existence of God was presented. No evidence proving creationism is presented. The opponent answered none of my questions regarding the impossibility of a Christian God. 

KdCuber

We will now provide examples of the arguments used by the opponent described in the above post. 
"Many irrelevant arguments"
"A  scalar quantity in physics that can be described by a single element of a number field such as a real number, often accompanied by units of measurement as the opponent assumes that the universe did not begin to exist. "

"The opponent did not understand in the last debate that In quantum mechanics, the Planck time (tP) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units.

Apprently , for all of the theoretical physics the opponent seems to be aware of the opponent did not rationalize A Planck time unit is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44s.

The opponent therefore must explain how a vacuum can exist."

"1. the unit of time is the second (symbol: s)"

"Many arguments that have already been disproven"

"- a certified Lab test result tested a blood specimen sample from a cloth Jesus was assumed to be burried in. The summary analysis of the report determined Jesus was biologically born of a virgin lacking the Chromosomal segments from a human father that are the result of reproduction."

"- a sanitized CIA document states that Noah's flood happened in the world. "

"Many arguments that the oppoonent believed I didn't agree with, but that i instead do agree with"

"The opponent conditionally assumes that the universe did not have a beggining, as the opponent disregards that:

1. what lacks existence can be a potential effect of it's own existence as related to the cause and effect of human existence."

"Either the opponent concedes the universe had a beggining or the opponent must rationally justify why Einstein's theory of relativity along with the entire scientific communitys concept of physics must be disregarded, to explain the theory of evolution, where a universe does not begin to exist and further explain and justify how natural physics are related to the physical cause of the universe while disregarding and explaining how T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry can be disregarded."

As a final note, the opponent most likely disagrees with the physical definition of time:
A  scalar quantity in physics that can be described by a single element of a number field such as a real number, often accompanied by units of measurement as the opponent assumes that the universe did not begin to exist. 

"The opponent assumes something can be it's own cause and effect despite the fact that non-existence and existence would therefore be categorized as mutually in express terms"

"Many arguments that were based on severely unreliable sources, or supported by data that was collected millenia ago and has very large uncertainty ranges."

"- the seneatorial docket in Rome which bears the known seal of Pontius pilate includes statements by Pontius pilate where pilate states that he met the ressurected Jesus .

- the seneatorial docket in Rome includes the official seal of herod which states that Jesus is God.

-the seneatorial docket in Rome bears the seal of Ceasear Augustus who states he had pilate executed for crucifying God and that pilate ruined the world.

- a certified Lab test result tested a blood specimen sample from a cloth Jesus was assumed to be burried in. The summary analysis of the report determined Jesus was biologically born of a virgin lacking the Chromosomal segments from a human father that are the result of reproduction."

All these arguments state that the universe could not have had a beginning, and that as a direct consequence a Christian God must have created the universe. However, as stated by the opponent, "That God's existence is natural and that God's existence is the only form of existence that is natural in respect to not requiring creation." However, how can a being exist outside of space time singularity formed at the beginning of the universe? How can anything exist outside of that which is defined to be existent? 

The universe, as stated by the opponent, does indeed have a beginning following the Big Bang model. Since everything that is conceived as existing must have been bounded by the universe, at its beginning the universe must have been a space-time singularity, or a gravitaitonal sinkhole of infinite cosmological potential slope. Hence, everything that existed was bounded by this space-time singularity, and hence God could not have caused the beginning of the universe, because then he would have to exist externally from the boundary of space time singularity. Simply: the space time singularity defines all that exists, and hence God could not have externally caused the cosmic inflation of the universe in as much as God could not have existed out of the space time singularity. 

Furthermore, even if God were able to exist outside the boundary that delimits that which exists, then the amount of energy to generate a dynamic system with ever increasing entropy would have to be infinite. Since the opponent believes to understand physics, then the opponent must admit that the Principle of Conservation of Energy must apply. By the principle of conservation of energy, God can't harvest the amount of energy needed for the creation of the universe, unless this energy were to reside INSIDE the god. 

However, by the Second Law of thermodynamics, this infinite potential well can't reside inside God. Th Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system can't decrease over time. However, if the energy resided in God, then it would have to be dissipated or else entropy would be conserved. The dissipation of energy in this system therefore proves that God could not have the energy needed to create the universe. 

jesusisGod777

Do you ever read what people write?

It's obvious you skimmed. What a waste of talking to a moron.

I said to address the statements.

Second I said that there is a limit of possibilities within the range of any Cosmological argument. STFU.

I'm seriously debating a moron.

Even most scientists would respond and debate the questions asked. It's obvious you've never been in a formal debate so stop trying to have formal debates when you disregard FORMALITY.

Please look up the word formal and stop bothering me. Your a  f moron.

jesusisGod777

Historically proven false when the CIA has an official document on THE DEPART OF THE GIVERMENT WEBSITE SAYING IT HAPPENED. Who am I debating, I HAVE A MASTERS DEGREE YOu RETARD WHICH MEANS MY ARGUMENTS PASSED PEER REVIEW I KNOW YOUR bsing because in order to have a master's degree you have to contribute work that passes peer review. jUST STFU.

jesusisGod777

0 of your argument is original and none of what your talking about do actual scientists debate. If you had an MD you'd be part of a science department.

What science department are you a part of and what's you're department code?

jesusisGod777

I'm going to tell you straight up and I don't care if it registers with you.

I'm not even going to talk to you about actual scientific discussions.

1.You disregarded to have a formal debate.

2. You did not respond accordingly as formally stated in the preliminary statement.

3. You are no organizing your statements or responses.

I'm not wasting actual intelligence and formal opening statements with someone who obviously has never actually debated in a formal manner.

You have no idea how to debate and I'm not wasting the time to have a disorganized debate on complex subjects where your acting retarted.

Jesus is Lord.

It's a fact. Don't ask me to debate again.

jesusisGod777

I'm going to show you what scientists think because apparently you're unaware.

Excerpt from a scientific journal:

The name comes from a thought experiment described by James Clerk Maxwell in which a microscopic demon guards a gate between two halves of a room. It only lets slow molecules into one half, only fast ones into the other. By eventually making one side of the room cooler than before and the other hotter, it seems to reduce the entropy of the room, and reverse the arrow of time. Many analyses have been made of this; all show that when the entropy of room and demon are taken together, this total entropy does increase"

They all are just trying to send you to hell.

A scientists is a person who hates God Yahweh 

And two

Hates people.

What more to act like a devil then to attempt to deceive people into going to hell.

Jesus is Lord.