From: me@yahoo.com   
      
   On 2025-07-26 13:09:26 +0000, RonO said:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I quoted Arnold Sommerfeld above. He was of course a very great   
   contributor to the theory of thermodynamics, but it's worth noting that   
   others said similar things. Keith Laidler, in The World of Physical   
   Chemistry, described the struggles that most of the great names of the   
   19th century -- Kelvin, Clausius, Rankine, Helmholtz, and even Gibbs   
   (though in his case he probably understood it very well but couldn't   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)