Micaiah said:http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html
Can you, in your own words, respond with a rational, readable and robust refutation to the rhetoric referred to in the links?
This should be funny.
Micaiah said:And SLOT proves common descent is wrong?
I don't mean to be rude, but why don't you do the same? Posting some links and asking people to refute them isn't considered a good debating technique. People spend a lot of time on their responses. I'm sure they'd want a personal face to discuss things with.Can you, in your own words, respond with a rational, readable and robust refutation to the rhetoric referred to in the links?
I don't mean to be rude, but why don't you do the same? Posting some links and asking people to refute them isn't considered a good debating technique. People spend a lot of time on their responses. I'm sure they'd want a personal face to discuss things with.
Micaiah said:You said if I could explain equation 7.9 I won the argument. No strings attached.
I raised the stakes. I am asking you to accept that evolution is false if I can provide the explanation. As before, no strings attached.
You seem to be running scared.
Double or nothing.
BTW. I still haven't heard you give any explanations. I don't think you can.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Micaiah said:Not much point in progressing the discussion given your lack of understanding of the topic.
Micaiah said:Don't you agree that this comment indicates you do not understand the equation.
Micaiah said:I hope the irony of this is not wasted on our lurkers. The OP starts off making fun of YEC's by implying they could not explain SLOT. I gave a general overview of the subject with some links to support the comments.
The discussions on this topic get quite technical to those not versed in the various areas of science. When confronted with the responses competent YEC's on the topic Perplexed becomes mute, and asks me to explain what it all means. Obviously he hasn't a clue, in spite of the belittling insinuations made at the start of the thread.
Micaiah said:When confronted with the responses competent YEC's on the topic Perplexed becomes mute, and asks me to explain what it all means. Obviously he hasn't a clue, in spite of the belittling insinuations made at the start of the thread.
Micaiah said:You said if I could explain equation 7.9 I won the argument. No strings attached.
I raised the stakes. I am asking you to accept that evolution is false if I can provide the explanation. As before, no strings attached.
You seem to be running scared.
Double or nothing.
BTW. I still haven't heard you give any explanations. I don't think you can.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Micaiah said:The first chapter lays down some of the preliminary work which is developed further in the following two chapters not yet posted. In these chapters the mathematical treatment of entrpoy is chemical reactions that are relevant to processes that occur in the DNA. This clearly has implications to evolution.
.
That is a very loose definition. Entropy is a measure of the degeneracy of the energy of a system. Strictly speaking Entropy is Not Disorder.Micaiah said:The discussion on this topic centres on entropy, which loosely defined is a measure of the randomness of a system.
All natural processes increase entropy except possibly for very small systems over very short time scales as this article discusses.Most naturally occuring processes result in an increase in entropy.
No it doesn't or if you think it does please answer the question I posed earlier as to exactly how it does.That contradicts the idea that natural systems could evolve from the simple to the complex, from the disordered to the ordered.