From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/26/2025 4:45 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Pretty much where I have been most of my scientific career.  My PhD   
   committee made me take the physical chemistry for chem majors because it   
   was the only chemistry class that I had never taken in college.  Most   
   biologists only take the physical chemistry for non majors, if they ever   
   take physical chemistry.  They said that it would be good for me.  I was   
   over 5 years from my college calculus classes by then and I had my   
   calculus book open along side the chemistry text most of the time.  We   
   not only went over the theory, but had to derive the equations.  I can   
   honestly say that I have never had to use that knowledge again in my   
   science career.  I do not fully understand it, but I have a working   
   knowlege that it is soundly based, and that creationists like IDentity   
   are lost causes.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)