Can creationists explain thermodynamics to me

I'm seeking a response from the Perplexed in his own words. He seems to be a full bottle on the subject.

perplexed said:

Don't pretend that you could understand a robust refutation. I bet you cannot explain equation 7.9 in that article. If you can I will say you won.

Click to expand...

And SLOT proves common descent is wrong?

Can you, in your own words, respond with a rational, readable and robust refutation to the rhetoric referred to in the links?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

My intention here was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the OP. So far I have been proven correct.

Not much point in progressing the discussion given your lack of understanding of the topic.

Don't pretend that you could understand a robust refutation. I bet you cannot explain equation 7.9 in that article. If you can I will say you won.

Click to expand...

Don't you agree that this comment indicates you do not understand the equation.

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:

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.

Click to expand...

Or...

Maybe he wants you to show that you understand all that which you posted.

So instead of spending a lot of time refuting it all, all of which you will dismiss out of hand because you very likely dont understand any of it, he is trying to get you to engage in some discussion where you can show you understand the topic and that you will understand the refutation.

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.

Click to expand...

I can explain all of the equations if you would like, but before I do both equation 7.7 and 7.8 are glaringly false by his definition of the type of system he is considering and there is a large hole in his reasoning regarding free energy, ice forming and polymerization reactions. After you can tell me what his errors in 7.7 and 7.8 are and explain to me the problem with his reasoning we can continue the discussion. BTW his arguments while false may be relevant to a discussion of abiogenesis but not to a discussion of common descent.

Added in edit, of course the earth is not a closed system near equilbrium and even in closed systems that are not near equilibrium order can spontaneously arise.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

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 applied chemical reactions that are relevant to processes that occur in the DNA. This clearly has implications to evolution.

Perplexed has dispensed with the need to provide a complete and detailed discussion on the subject, pinning the argument won or lost on a single equation. It seems logical to me to extend this approach to the whole argument developed in the three chapters and conclude evolution is false again based on the equation 7.9 test case.

As stated before, I have yet to see Perplexed demonstrate that he has the slightest clue on the topic, or that he is any position to critique the YEC position. It seems he is strongly reliant of others on this forum to provide the technical support he lacks.

As I said before, people in glass houses shouldn't stow throwns.

7-9 shouldn't be that hard to explain. I learned all of meanings of the various letters in a high school physics class.

Then again, it looks like Micaiah is just going to keep repeating what he has done; and everyone else is just going to keep asking him what 7.9 means. I don't think he has any intention of teling us.

Micaiah said:

The discussion on this topic centres on entropy, which loosely defined is a measure of the randomness of a system.

Click to expand...

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.

Most naturally occuring processes result in an increase in entropy.

Click to expand...

All natural processes increase entropy except possibly for very small systems over very short time scales as this article discusses.

That contradicts the idea that natural systems could evolve from the simple to the complex, from the disordered to the ordered.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't or if you think it does please answer the question I posed earlier as to exactly how it does.