From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
[snip most of Stephen's nonsense]
>Richard says of himself below that: "I admit that I don't understand the
>Second Law either"!
Exactly. I have the sense to realize that the Second Law is a complex
technical issue that I don't fully understand.
Stephen, on the other hand, has the arrogance to believe that he understands
it better than the experts!
There has been a discussion recently in talk.origins about whether the
entropy of the sun is increasing or decreasing. It has been claimed that
it's decreasing, because nuclear fusion results in a decrease in the number
of particles. I don't pretend to know whether this is correct, but no doubt
Stephen, with his thorough knowledge of the Second Law, will be able to
enlighten us. (Not!)
I may not fully understand the Second Law, but I understand enough to see
that Stephen doesn't have a clue about it. Stephen and his friends keep
referring to stuff like "code-driven energy-conversion systems" in the
context of the Second Law. Just reading the Second Law, in any of the forms
that physicists give it, one can see that it says _nothing_ at_all_ about
codes or conversion systems. The only form of the law that mentions these is
the version invented by creationists. Stephen's basic error is to confuse
the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the Creationist Law of Thermodynamics.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 07:19:23 EST