I found Doctor X

Bovinity, actually not a bad answer to my query, how the creation and reproduction of life fits in with laws of entropy. Specifically:



This relates to the first law of thermodynamics, not the second. This has to do with the conservation of energy.



Very insightful from you, and correct also. Eventually, we all turn back to dust and ash, so life itself follows the laws of entropy. However, it doesn't explain why life is created in the first place; but you do address that:





Again, this deals with the first law of thermodynamics, not the second.



I mentioned it before already, evolution is a perfect example of a biological extension of the laws of entropy. HOWEVER, that's not the question.

The question relates to the CREATION of life, that first proto-cell. The chemical reactions to create that cell are covered by the first law. The second law (from an evolutionary standpoint) allows for that cell to evolve into higher lifeforms.

What the second law doesn't allow for is the creation of that cell in the first place. It's at a contradiction. If you don't feel this is true, I am curious as to what your definition of the law of entropy is.

No edit, bah....the first sentence should read:

"Bovinity, actually not a bad answer to my query, but it still doesn't explain how the creation and reproduction of life fits in with laws of entropy. Specifically:"

I was worried someone would point that out! While conservation does come into play here, the concept of entropy being overcome in a system with an expenditure of energy is a part of the second law as well. Mostly because the second law recognizes the expenditure of energy as a form of entropy as well, so in the great balance of things, the overall amount of entropy still increases.

Or perhaps, more to the point, the second law recognizes and allows for the occurrence. So long as a greater amount of energy remains disordered and lost in the system, order can increase elsewhere in the system without violating the second law.

There is another point, made earlier in the thread by Elessar with regards to "never". The second law is really not 100% infallible. Even if we can never come to an agreement with regards to the effects of entropy on the beginnings of life, the fact is that the universe can just trump both of us now and then and ignore the second law altogether just out of pure chance.

Well, I intentionally ignored Elessar because of this point. A scientific law is 100% infallible. That's the difference between scientific laws and scientific theories.

If an exception is found to a scientific law, then it either needs to be amended (through something like Heisenberg's Uncertaintity Principle), or deleted.

We aren't talking about the theories of thermodynamics, we are talking about laws. Just like it's not the theory of gravity, it's the laws of gravity. Different from say, the theory of relativity.

Now, could the any scientific law be wrong? Absolutely, after all, all laws are created by men.

But if you go by scientific reasoning, then laws govern the rules of the universe we live in. They are correct until proven otherwise, and we extrapolate what we know of the universe from them, again, until proven otherwise.

The laws of gravity are infallible, as long as the earth keeps spinning and we have the atmospheric conditions we have, then an apple will always drop to the ground, and not rise up into the air.... until you can show an exception, at which point all the laws of gravity will have to be revisited.

The laws of arithmetic are infallible. 2+2 will always equal 4 unless you can prove otherwise. If you can, the laws of arithmetic will have to be revisited.

The laws of chemistry are infallible. Given the right atmospheric settings, water will always boil at 100 degrees Celcius. Even at different atmospheric settings, you can predict to 100% accuracy what temperature water will boil at. If you can ever find an exception, then the laws of chemistry would have to be revisited.

The laws of thermodynamics are infallible. Everything in the universe to date has followed the laws of energy conservation and entropy. You can predict to 100% accuracy the energy production and emmission of chemical reactions. Cars will not form out of dust and ash because they are not self-replicating, and do not emit (or return) any energy, and therefore energy is not conserved (but I'm sure Elessar knew that, right?).

But Nek, you're wrong! Cars do emit energy! They emit heat when you drive them. AHA!

Well, that's only true because an external force (humans) adds energy into the system. You add gas to make the car run, and you turn on the electric switch to start the process. This gets converted to heat.

But unless it could add energy in by itself (a car was a creature that could drink it's own gas or electrically start it's own motor), then it would just sit there and never emit any form of energy. Therefore, any energy gone into making the car would have no way of being conserved. Therefore, such a "creature" could not be created under the laws of thermodynamics.

Biological creatures and mechanical ones differ because anything man-made required energy to be put into the system to create, but itself creates no energy. Biological creatures produce, emit, and transfer energy on their own. Therefore, no man-made device can ever arrive de novo. If one did, like a car or computer being created from dush and ash over millions of years, then the laws of thermodynamics would have to be revisited.

This is not entirely accurate.



What does the earth spinning and the atmosphere have to do with gravity? And no, the laws are not infallible, we still have a lot we don't entirely understand about gravity. There's more to gravity than just, "Things fall down."



Again, this is incorrect. Experiments have produced observations that are not 100% consistant with the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The second law especially is well-known as being a law more of probability than absolutes. That meaning, that while it always seems to hold true that if you measured the gas molecules in a box, they follow a roughly uniform distribution, but you COULD find all the molecules in one spot and not another at one point. But the probability is so low that it never actually occurs for our observations to catch. But since we cannot say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to happen, that little catch has to remain in the second law.

But all this is really more of a tangent to our real discussion, which you seem to have evaded for now! Get back here!

More to the point, I'm waiting for one of the Second-Law-Quoting-Creationists to address the fact of -



- in regards to the assertion that the second law somehow does not allow for the existance of life.

Seriously? No offense Bovi, but it's hard for me to take you as credible if you don't even understand those basic principles of gravity. Hint: earth spinning causes centripetal force and acceleration.




Find me one exception. Just like with gravity, there are mathematical equations associated with thermodynamics. I worry though whether or not you know these formulations considering your gravity statement. In any case, I am not aware of any case where these formulas have been proven incorrect, but I would be happy to be proven wrong and see an exception.



However, your example is not an exception. No where in the laws of entropy does it state anything about uniform distribution.

In addition, this goes back to the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle. It doesn't always mean your original law is incorrect, but sometimes it needs to be amended.

Neither of those have anything to do with gravity itself. Other interacting forces may alter your perception and feeling of gravity, but they are not - nor a part of - gravity itself.



I could take a page from Vanamar's book and suggest that you perform the research on your own! =)



It's not a matter of uniform distribution so much as demonstrating that the matter, in this case the gas molecules, could move into a more ordered state on their own accord. To perhaps use a better example that Hawking used, think of the CO2 molecules being released into the air when you open a soda bottle. The second law cannot state with *absolute* certainty that they could not return to the bottle. Again, this never seems to happen with our observations but it also cannot be scientifically ruled out, thus the catch remains.

And as an addition to the gravity thing, centripetal force exerts outward.

If centripetal force were a factor, it would be throwing us AWAY from the earth, not into it.

Actually, my mistake, that explanation is incorrect. But the idea remains correct, if the rotation of the earth were a significant factor, we would be thrown away from the earth, not into it.

Forgive my science-tardness, but wouldn't the natural formation of crystals violate the second law if it were to state what Nekrotic seems to hold that it states? I know I'm stepping into a big-boy discussion with my LIberal Arts Degree, but I'm curious...

In a nutshell, yes.

Basically, creationists want to cling to a very limited and skewed view of the Second Law, that being that everything in every aspect must constantly move to a less ordered state. This, obviously, serves them well in convincing those of a quasi-scientific mind that the very laws of nature agree with them.

But entropy is a complex thing. As I've stated before, within any system order can increase in some areas so long as the *overall* order of the system decreases. To use a simplistic example, this means that within that primordial puddle of ooze somewhere in 50 bajillion BC, the building blocks of the first self-replicating protein could indeed come together and the second law could be appeased with something as simple as energy dissipating in the form of heat, increasing the amount of entropy in the surrounding area.

Voila, disorder increases, a tiny pocket of higher order appears for our little protein and we're all happy.

Note that this is not conservation. That is a different issue entirely. This example simply states that the protein can come together in a more ordered state so long as more disorder is generated when energy is released into the surroundings, increasing disorder.

science is just man's way of explaining the natural world, which is not unlike religion. just because things are naturally pulled to the center of the planet does not mean it's called gravity and that it's 9.80 meters per second squared, that's just what we use to explain it

_________________

It is very unlike religion. And unless there's some titan database of terms and explanations somewhere, it's only reasonable to say that the force that pulls things toward the center of the planet is, indeed, called gravity...since we're (as far as we know) the only people that call it anything.

but gravity only exists in the form that we recognize it, and as the bottom line to the question, because we choose to believe that it is the end of the story. because it can be recreated and tested and explained satisfactorily as the force that pulls objects toward the center of the planet, it is agreed upon that gravity is the answer. that doesn't make it the unquestionable truth, just the best explanation for forces unseen, that man can come up with.

i'm not saying science is bullshit and jesus is the answer to all the questions, but saying science is the only truth is a little flawed, because it's simply the best evidence man can provide to explain the natural world.

_________________

People get so pissed when talking about this... part of my great frustration...

You cannot say WITHOUT A DOUBT anything. Just like a preacher cannot say without a doubt God DOES exist. Save me the rehash of the various arguments about dragons/etc. No point here, just observing that to say you know the truth of the universe WITHOUT A DOUBT damages your stance.

Ultimately, that is the real stinker, isn't it? What happened FIRST.... and what happened before that?

I just hope that when I die there is an answer to that question... and not just nothingness. It's a pretty dismal thought if you really think about it.

So what should I call it, since I have no doubt in my stance? I say it, I have no doubt, so I say it without a doubt, sir.

If I said, "I can say, infallibly, that god does not exist." or "I can say, absolutely correctly, that god does not exist." then you'd have a point!

I'm with you, I don't want to end. Unfortunately there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

_________________

I dunno. I'm pretty content with my morality. To the degree if offered eternal life, I'm not entirely sure I'd take it. Life, being the random occurrence it seems to be, is becoming more a gift to me the older I get. Funny how that works isn't it?

Yeah, I always felt bad for people that felt their lives were meaningless if not for the existence of heaven, or they feared death so much that they needed heaven to look forward to in order to cope.

I'm mortal. It's ok. That's life....literally! =)

And now we come full circle.

Again, if you do not understand how centripetal force is integral to gravity, then you don't understand gravity. You don't understand how satellites maintain orbit. You don't understand how we can produce gravity in our space stations. In fact, your very definition of centripetal force is almost the opposite of what it really is. Look into it.

So, should someone who doesn't understand gravity, who doesn't have a scientific understanding of thermodynamics (still waiting on your examples), be someone you should turn to help you understand something far more complicated, like the existence of God? I mean, you don't even know how gravity works, but you know, beyond any doubt, God doesn't exist? Ok.

This just goes back to my original post, which I'm not going to re-iterate.



No. If you are talking about crystals like diamonds, emeralds, etc.... they require a certain temperature, pressure, chemicals, etc. before they can form. You can apply mathematical models and create crystals to 100% accuracy.

In fact, you can use the 2nd law and apply it to crystal formation. Without getting too scientific, in a closed system where heat is applied, water will evaporate, becoming more random, and solid matter will condense until it get saturated. Once it gets saturated, you remove the heat, and allow it to cool. Once it cools, the water molecules condense again, and you get crystals.

Crystals can also form without any energy being applied to the system. A salt crystal is one example. If the chemical conditions are ideal, and the ideal state can be reached (such as ionic balance), then a crystal will naturally form.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm an idiot when it comes to this kind of thing, but from my very limited understanding (which I just used various websites to remember...not just wikipedia, I promise), gravity doesn't rely at all on centripetal force. If the Earth were to stop rotating tomorrow, we would still be prevented from free-floating due to gravity.

Obviously gravity can effect centripetal force, but the same is not true the other way. Centripetal force cannot effect gravity.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Who said God was more complicated than Gravity, anyway?

Gravity is pretty fuckin' complicated...

it's hard to explain centripetal acceleration without being able to draw the direction of the forces but it's basically the most textbook explanation of equal and opposite. really not complicated if you can draw a circle with a series of right angled vectors

_________________

It's not about life being meaningless or fearing death and needing to cope.

It's a concept of simple nothingness and ceasing to be. Does it scare me? Yes and no. I don't remember my first memory. I don't remember ever being unconscious. It's just a tough concept to get your mind around.

There are things that make me believe in a greater power and there are things that push to the contrary.

Personally, I believe for anyone to say they know the truth is silly.

Oh if it were the god of the bible? Fuck that shit. But then again, I've burned myself on a stove and it hurt like fuck. I'm pretty sure being set on fire would be a powerful motivator.

But there's no way I'd voluntarily pay homage to something I consider pretty fucking evil.

Assuming something benign or even nice? Yeah I'd love to continue existing and more importantly I'd love to have the answers to all the questions I've got. I'm sure at some point 'eternity' gets so boring one would wish for non existence but I'd be happy to try everything until then.

Unfortunately, when I die I'm pretty sure it will be a dreamless sleep of nonexistence, much like being under anesthesia and much like I experienced before I was born. It frets me now, but won't once I croak because I'll be gone. Best I can hope for is to leave the world a slightly better place than I found it.

_________________

Death is just like before you were born. And that was pretty o.k. if you ask me.

_________________

Yes, we've come full circle. You've gone back to spouting total garbage and hiding behind insults.

You're seriously sitting there and saying gravity relies on rotation in ANY way and then saying I don't know anything? You're talking about "producing" gravity on a space station? Are you SERIOUS? I mean, I've been nice about it up until now, but I'm rather tired of it. You are utterly CLUELESS here. I mean, completely and utterly.

You say gravity is based on rotation? You say the Heisenberg principle talks about changing laws? You confuse descriptions of entropy and conservation? Have you ever looked at a dictionary of any of these terms, much less a science book?

You just need to avoid discussions like this. I am serious. Really. I cannot even FATHOM how someone can believe things like "gravity exists because the earth spins" or that we "generate gravity" in a space station in the year 2008. I'm afraid that at some point you're going to tell me the sun orbits us and the earth is flat, too.

No, you're right.

Gravity is one of the four great forces. It exists independent of any physical motion. It exists if two things are still, spinning, dancing, a mile apart, a light year apart, blinking, twinkling or sputtering.

Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. — Susan Ertz




Yes, but isn't the earth rather explicitly not a closed system? There is, after all, a rather large external source of energy pouring in.

I'm pretty sure even he doesn't know what he meant there. "Without getting too scientific." means, "I can't really explain what I'm saying here."

Specifically, I'd like to know what he means by saying that solid matter will condense when heat is applied.

I think he means water will condense on solid matter, saturating it and eventually dissipating it? Dunno.

I think the core point he's trying to make is this: imagine all the matter in the universe squished into a pin-point, then exploding out. The material should dissapate evenly (think drop of food coloring in a glass). The idea that just the right chemicals would combine and form life seems far-fetched. Of course, there are explanations - random energy charges from friction causes concentrations of materials etc. I don't know enough to argue these points, but there seems to be some validity in them.

Obviously this does not "prove" there is a God. Of course, this is the fundamental flaw in most "Christian Science". They say "you can't disprove what I'm saying, so it's true", and unfortunately, that's not how real science works.

On the flipside, this is what mostly drives my belief that there is something more. Maybe not an old white guy on a cloud, but SOMETHING that guided this, or some deeper explanation. And of course, the explanation could simply be a mechanical one, I dunno.

It could be. And who knows, maybe in my mad pursuit of science, I'm really just chasing God.

Michio Kaku is on the case!

It's not that simple. For some Christians, they are certain that God exists because they believe they have actually physically experienced his presence in some way. If this is the case with the person you may be arguing with, it's not going to matter what you throw at them in terms of evidence, they will always have in them the response, "But I have *experienced* God."

Yeah...there's tons of theories.

Even with the example of the food coloring, there are small irregularities in the dispersion of the coloring. It stands to reason that similar irregularities would have existed in the way the matter in the beginning of this universe spread out. (Although in the inflationary model of the universe, these irregularities would have been smoothed out. Even so, we still find tiny - very tiny - irregularities in background radiation. That could suggest that things weren't *perfectly* smoothed out.)

Those tiny irregularities in the food coloring don't really make a difference to anything, but at extremely large scales when gravitational effects become a factor, every tiny little irregularity where a little more matter existed "here" than "there" would produce an area of stronger gravity, attracting more matter from the surrounding areas of weaker gravity.

Obviously this is a very simplistic analogy, but you get the idea.

Then I guess they don't really have "faith" in the traditional sense anymore!

If you listen to most typical Protestant proclamations the last several years, this is the claim of most of their churches-- that you can have a "personal" relationship with God Himself.

Welp...I guess we can't ever disprove that they do, now can we?

Gravity doesn't rely on centripetal force. Gravity IS a centripetal force. We can prove gravity by reproducing it through the generation of centrifugal forces to counteract the centripetal forces generated by gravity.

The first thing you have to do, is not be like Bovinity who can read things off of the internet, but not understand what's being read. You know this when you hear him explain centripetal forces, but instead is giving the exact opposite definitions.

Why? Because he's confusing centrifugal forces and centripetal forces. Very easy to do when you read something too quick without understanding the underlying differences, but also easy to do when you don't really have a fundamental understanding of the subject.

I mean, if it was Bovi's world, scientists wouldn't have centrifuges, they would have centripedes. How cool would that be? You could even slap a fucking Atari sticker on the side of that thing!

But back on point.....

Let's talk about your point on gravity. Gravity occurs between any two object with mass. Any 10th grader could tell you that, so it's nothing to be proud of.

What could bring you a step ahead would be.....can you prove to me gravity exists? How many people you think remember how it's done, mathematically speaking? It's one thing to know something, it's another thing to understand it.

Pretend you're Isaac Newton. An apple falls on your head. You come up with an idea that there is this "gravity" thing that exists between any two objects. Smaller, less heavy objects will be pulled towards larger, more massive objects.

Along comes Bovinity. He challenges the very existence of gravity. You can't see it can you? Can you feel it? No! It must be like God then! How can you believe in something you can't feel, can't see, can't affirm?

(Actually, using Bovinity is a poor example here, because if it was Bovinity, then he would have had a basic understanding of Latin for that era, and probably wouldn't be confused between centripetal and centrifugal forces because he would understand better where the root of those words come from. But I digress).

Well, he has a point. What is gravity? Is it a magic elf in the center of all of us that pulls us towards each other through some sort of invisible string?

But you are Isaac mother-fucking Newton, probably the smartest man in the millineum. You are not going to let this nonsense stop you.

So how do you verify your existence of this mysterious thing called gravity?

Well, one thing you notice is celestial bodies. If gravity exists between two objects, and an apple falls from a tree down to the ground, why doesn't the Earth fall into the Sun? Why doesn't the Moon fall into the Earth?

This is where you apply your superior intellect, and basically reinvent calculus to prove your point. If you are a genius, then you are like Newton, and able to derive the Laws of Motion which he is famous for.

So you then realize that these object must be moving at a speed and direction which counteracts the centripetal forces of gravity. If the sun is the center, and the Earth is orbiting the Sun in a perfect circle (let's say), then your theories suggest that the centripetal force of gravity should pull the Earth towards it. To counteract that force, the Earth must move at a rate perpendicular to this centripetal force at an equal rate. This force is the centrifugal force generated by the planetary orbit.

You look at the stars, you calculate the rates of movement of planetary bodies, you apply it to what will here-to-fore be known as Newtonian physics, and voila! Your calculations are correct. You have proven that there is a force that exists known as gravity. What you won't know is what is causing it, and for that, you will have to wait until Einstein is born.

Now, I could supply the equations and solve them for you, but I don't want to get too scientific here, because the most elegant things in nature can be described in the simplest terms. I'm hoping my examples will suffice as far as explaining my point, rather than showing a bunch of scientific equations that may not do you any good if you don't have a working knowledge on the subject anyways. You could always be like Bovinity and think that means I don't know what I'm talking about, when really I'm just trying to make things hopefully more understandible.

But maybe you think Bovi is more knowledgeable than I am about science. Fair enough. This is the same guy that asks me to prove that solid matter will condense when heat is applied, because apparently he's never cooked a hamburger on a BBQ before. But no worries, you believe who you want to believe.



No, and you simply do not understand the meaning of closed and open systems when it comes to thermodynamics. Solar radiation has nothing to do with crystal formation, or whether or not a system is closed. You were talking about the creation of crystals, were you not? You do not need the earth to create crystals. You can do so in a laboratory.

I'm going to be a nerd here and quote myself......but I can't stop laughing.

The same guy who says he understands thermodynamics (I wonder if he knows what the roots of that word are?) doesn't understand how heat causes matter to condense. I mean, that's like Thermodynamics 101. High school shit. Or maybe college freshman, I don't know, but it's been too long.



Ah man, that shit is fucking priceless.

What's priceless is you continuing to flail.

I like how you went off and copy-pasted a new definition of gravity after spending the previous days insisting that gravity existed due to the earth's spin.

Honest question here, but how does heat cause matter to condense? My understanding is that it causes molecules to do just the opposite. If I heat up a metal, eventually it turns into a liquid. Heat it up some more, and it turns to a gas. That doesn't seem like condensation to me.

Now *pressure* I would understand...

It doesn't. Cold does, with the exception of water. Which is an important exception and earth would be VERY different if it didn't (ice forming on bodies of water would sink/form on the bottom. There would be no insulation from ice forming on top, etc.) And WHY H2O is the exception is also interesting (has to do with it's molecular form and there isn't really a short answer, except that the way it binds causes expansion).

_________________

That's what I thought, but Nekrotic was acting pretty superior, and I thought maybe he knew something I didn't :/.

No, he's just being a bloviating moron. He should stick to misdiagnosing illnesses.

Wow, I had to actually look that one up!

you should watch the west wing they use it about every six episodes

_________________

This thread is pretty interesting. It just needs a hat with some sort of matter-condensing flames. They'd have to be fake, of course, since they don't exist in reality...

But Neesha, doesn't a hamburger get smaller when you cook it? Isn't that irrefutable proof!?

On another topic, here's a nice way to describe centripetal force. It's an analogy I thought up! I like analogies.

Imagine if you will, a play. This play will be Romeo and Juliet, why not. The play, in order to work, demands that there be a Romeo. Romeo, of course, does not actually exist, but an actor plays him to satisfy the requirements of the play.

So we have the moon orbiting the earth. Or the earth orbiting the sun. Or even just a bucket that you tie a rope to and spin around really fast so that it's "orbiting" you. (We all did this as a kid, right?) In each case the system is the play. Centripetal force is the Romeo...the thing that doesn't REALLY exist on it's own. In the first two cases, gravity is the actor playing Romeo. In the third case, the tension of the rope is the actor.

So why do we have this "force" that doesn't really exist, but it more of a part that some real force plays? Because in any system where something is following a circular orbit around something else, some force must exist that keeps inertia from simply making the orbiting object fly out in a straight line away from the object it is to orbit. That force varies from system to system. It could be gravity in the case of celestial objects, it could be tension in the case of the bucket and rope. It could be the electromagnetic forces that keep electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. (Don't get all quantum-mechanical on me. It's just a simplistic example.)

In fact, it might even be better to simply refer to the word "centripetal" as the description of a particular force in a system, rather than referring to it as a force in and of itself. But I like my actors analogy better. <3

And yes...I am well aware I mixed the terms centripetal and centrifugal up in a previous post. That would be why I made a post quickly afterwards correcting my mix-up. I'll mix them up again someday too, it's ok...I'll know my mistake. But my mistake doesn't change the fact that my assertion was correct...the rotation of the earth does not hold us down. If anything, it would cause us to be thrown off if not for gravity.

Merry Christmas, threadtossers!

What, no Happy Hanukkah?

Um...you realize that the reason your hamburger gets smaller is CONVERSION right? You are evaporating the water and other fluids in the meat. They are no longer part of the hamburger at that point, so of course it's smaller. It didn't condense the matter, it converted it.

Solid matter will only condense when cold is applied, again the exception to this is H2O. Which I mention so we don't get a 'well my beer explodes in the freezer explain that!' post.

_________________

I suppose if you want to get REALLY picky, you could argue that the overall density of the hamburger patty went up as you expelled water and grease and whatnot and the hamburger shrunk.

But you still didn't "condense" the meat. If anything, the density of the solid meat itself went down due to heating, but the overall density of the object known as the "hamburger patty" went up. But that density increase only took place because you expelled less dense material, not because you increased the density of the meat.

It's rather like having a bucket of soupy mud. If you boil all the water away, you'd be left with a bucket of solid dirt and/or rocks which would be more dense than the soupy mud, but you didn't increase the density of the dirt itself. You just removed the less dense water from the system, increasing the average density of the contents of the bucket. (Actually, if you REALLY wanted to be picky, you could actually argue that you lowered the overall density of the contents of the bucket, since air would replace the boiled-away water!)

But no, in no case will you add heat to a uniform solid substance and have the end result be a more dense substance. (Except water, as Tarot has helpfully reminded us!)

Perhaps that's what Nek was getting at, if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And in the end, we get no closer to why people can't just say Merry Christmas.

Nor do we find out why morons make such a big deal when Merry Christmas isn't said.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

The best part about the "Offended Christians" is how they act like December is THEIR MONTH and all those other holidays are trying to steal it and how they had it first and blah blah blah.

Extra LOL when you consider they just "stole" it in the first place.