From: me@yahoo.com
On 2025-07-25 17:29:22 +0000, RonO said:
> On 7/25/2025 12:13 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM wrote:
>>>
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That ID is still successful as bait should should be
>>>>
>>>> How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
>>>> abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
>>>> belief?
>>>>
>>>> There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> That's it.
>>>
>>> It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as
>>> evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
>>> fundamental physical concepts and axioms.
>>>
>>> But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
>>> built upon. Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
>>> thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual
>>> reality. Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed
>>> arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>> So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
>>> first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
>>> are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
>>> time.
>>>
>> In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
>> Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?
>>
>
> It is the usual creationist projection. Their use of thermodynamics
> has always been fundamentally flawed, but they can't take
> responsibility for that. It has to be the thermodynamics that is the
> issue. It seems crazy that the creationist misconceptions still exist
> after decades of failure for the creationist stupidity. ID perps like
> Dembski tried to revive the misconceptions about the second law and
> failed a couple decades ago. That burned out soon after the turn of
> the century. It is amazing that there are still IDiots like IDentity
> when the bait and switch is all that ID has been used for, for over 2
> decades, and the ID perps are running the bogus scam on their
> creationist support base.
Almost everyone finds thermodynamics difficult. We can set creationists
aside, because they don't understand anything much, but even competent
scientists, as I imagine James Tour is, can spout a lot of nonsense
about things they don't understand. As Arnold Sommerfeld put it,
"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it,
you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you
think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third
time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that
time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you any more."
It's the 2nd law that gives problems. The 0th and 1st laws are
conceptually straightforward and easy to accept, and the 3rd isn't
really a law at all in the sense the others are. Statistical
thermodynamics, and particularly the 2nd law, is conceptually
straightforward, but the underlying mathematics is difficult; by
contrast, the mathematical analysis of the classical treatment (Carnot
cycles etc.) is not too hard, but the underlying concepts are obscure.
Most serious scientists who need to know the 2nd law end up where
Sommerfeld put us: The third time you go through it, you know you don't
understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't
bother you any more.
Most of us who end up as research chemists, like James Tour and myself,
have studied thermodynamics to the extent that we may not fully
understand it but we accept that it is soundly based and we know how it
affects what is possible and what isn't.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
