Well actually I don't mind be corrected but not chastised when I have not had a chance to state my opinion and when my idea is not in accordance with your own. But i am willing to continue to debate. Seeing this thread is as good as any.
My intent was not to chastise in post 24, but simply to correct some misunderstandings. I'm sorry if my rather direct writing style gives the impression that I'm chastising, because that is not what I intent. When I see misconceptions in a science discussion I correct them, and I expect people to do the same for me. It's not always nice for the ego to be corrected, but I always thank people afterwards, because I'd rather learn from my mistakes and feel embarrassed about them than continue to hold any misconceptions.
You might not like to hear it, but the way you expressed the 2nd law in the earlier post, was wrong, pure and simple. Don't beat yourself, or me, up about it. People make mistakes, myself included. The 2nd law is difficult to wrap one's head around. I recently had a course in "Biological thermodynamics" and yet there are still plenty of blanks in my knowledge.
The way you expressed the law in your former post would mean that a seed couldn't grow into a tree. You later added information provided by an intelligence into the mix, but that would rule out entirely mundane processes such as snow flake formation. These things occur naturally and all over the world, so obviously your understanding of the 2nd law must have been incorrect.
But perhaps it would be easier, as you say, to start over, and explain it as simple as possible. The member Split Rock earlier made the point that it would help if you could point out the exact evolutionary mechanism that violates the law. Perhaps that would be a good starting point.
I'll just address a few select quotes:
The good old straw men argument, I hate it as much as you.
That's good to hear.
But it seems you yourself have a biased opinion towards evolution as much as I do for creationism.
We all have bias, it's a natural part of being a human being.
But we should always be careful that our bias doesn't deceive us. Bias tends to close minds concerning opposing viewpoints, and open them indiscriminately towards any sources that tells us what we like to hear.
I have found just as much useful information from "creation websites" as I have from non creationist.
I would advice scientific sources only, when learning about science. If there's a non-science agenda, that's a huge warning sign. Likewise I'd be careful about any 911-Truth site if I wanted to learn about the World Trade Center attacks. Sure these sites can look impressive on first sight, especially if they tell you want you want to hear, but it's doubtful you'll learn proper scientific criticisms.
Ever heard of Brian green. I've been trying to portray his ideas of the 2nd law but have done it ever so poorly.
I haven't heard about him. If you have a video or text link where he is expressing his ideas I'd be interested.
It seems that you are quick to judge and dismiss my entire belief structure already. I'm willing to be corrected but once correction turns into judgment that does seem to go over to well with anybody I'd think.
I think you're reading a bit too much into my corrections and criticisms.
I have not posed any judgment against you yet have I.
You mean other than the time you practically called me insane?
I do accept my mistakes in fact I consider myself a pretty humble person...
And despite of this you consider yourself more of an expert than the scientific community. Is that humility? Even in this thread a physicist told you you were wrong, and you simply brushed it off.
Looks like you can get just as passionate in your writing as I. I now find reality insane? What happened to our congenial discussion? Nice earning the respect points.
Notice that you're the one who introduced the word "insane", I merely returned it from whence it came. It wasn't a passionate attack from my side, rather a dispassionate return of your own medicine.
Peter
