Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

From: DNAunion@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 21:36:34 EST

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

    [...]

    >>>Richard Wein: Finally, as I'm trying to describe the situation in
    DNAUnion's rather confusing terms, let me try to use his term "energy
    conversion mechanism".

    DNAunion: Yep, Richard, you're totally confused: but not by me -it's your
    own doing. I have been bringing up *coupling mechanisms*, not *energy
    conversion mechanisms*. Are you sure you are not talking about someone
    else's term here? Huh?

    >>>Richard Wein: Since the SLOT deals only with energy and entropy, I assume
    that, by "energy conversion mechanism", DNAUnion means something which
    "converts" energy into reduced entropy.

    DNAunion: Well thanks for misassigning terms to me, then going further by
    saying what I supposedly mean by my supposed term.

    >>>Richard Wein: Well, the something that does this is the energy-driven
    processes that I mentioned earlier, such as chemical reactions. If you want
     to go to a lower level of explanation, then it's the primary physical
    (nuclear) forces which cause chemical reactions.

    DNAunion: While skimming posts, I noticed that David already corrected you
    here (electromagnetic force, not either of the nuclear forces), so I won't go
    into detail.

    >>>Richard Wein: DNAUnion probably wants to know *which* chemical reactions
    are (or might be) involved in abiogenesis.

    DNAunion: Finally, he's back to DNAunion and has left his talks about my
    apparently evil twin who says things about "energy conversion mechanisms"
    that "convert" energy into reduced entropy".

    >>>Richard Wein: Well, so do I! But that's outside the scope of the SLOT.
    It's sufficient, as far as the SLOT is concerned, to know that there *are*
    processes which "convert" energy into reduced entropy.

    DNAunion: You are not paying attention to me, are you? Why do you bring my
    name up so much in these posts if you are discussing something differnt than
    I am?

    I have made it clear that I am not discussing thermodynamics *alone* - I am
    talking about applying thermodynamics to life. Two fields involved here,
    count them, one...two. You even concede this by qualifying your statement
    with, "as far as the SLOT is concerned", but then head right back to plain
    old thermodynamics (apparently implying that I am wrong in the process),
    right where you like to start, hover, and end your discussions that
    *supposedly* deal with what I am discussing.
     
    [...]



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 14 2000 - 21:38:10 EST