The 'Truth'

[Rhiannon]

So your post is right and mine is wrong all you have got to do is point me to something that does not wear out,waiting.
~TW~

Can you show us something that proves you actually understood Shaker's questions?

[Dicky Underpants]

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/
~TW~

This article indicates that its authors haven't a bloody clue about how entropy functions within an open system, the very detail that Shaker pointed out to you.
They got one thing right - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is universal. However, again as pointed out, evolution is certainly not somehow managing to ignore it.

[Shaker]

So your post is right and mine is wrong

Precisely.

all you have got to do is point me to something that does not wear out,waiting.

"Something not wearing out" has absolutely zero to do with the creationist misunderstanding of thermodynamics as a supposed refutation of evolution.

I shall repeat my questions from earlier: given the difference between an open system and a closed system in the realm of physics, evidence of which as presented by me in the link in #359, do you (1) now understand the difference between the two and (2) now understand why the creationist so-called argument against evolution as presented by you in #347, #348 and #350 (for some reason) is based on a completely hopeless misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore an utter failure?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Precisely. "Something not wearing out" has absolutely zero to do with the creationist misunderstanding of thermodynamics as a supposed refutation of evolution.

I shall repeat my questions from earlier: given the difference between an open system and a closed system in the realm of physics, evidence of which as presented by me in the link in #359, do you (1) now understand the difference between the two and (2) now understand why the creationist so-called argument against evolution as presented by you in #347, #348 and #350 (for some reason) is based on a completely hopeless misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore an utter failure?

Actually the failure is even worse than that. Even in a closed system what "appears to be a more ordered system" may not actual be one. A good example is micelle formation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics_of_micellization

Even though it looks like order is forming, actually, overall, the system is more disordered and therefore entropy an entropy driven process.

So whether the system is open or closed you can't tell which way the entopirc arrow points by looking at it.

Even if evolution was unfavoured in terms of entropy it could still occur if the enthalpic contribution outweighed the unfavourable entopic contribution..

The direction of a reaction are determined by both the direction and magnitude of enthalply and entropy and, where, the two point in opposite directions the arbiter is the Gibb's free energy of the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

I suspect though that TW hasn't bothered to research this.

[Maeght]

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/
~TW~

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. = always looks very impressive that. Less so when you realise his Ph.D. was in hydraulic engineering though. Add to that comments from scientists working in the field of evolution pointing out the errors in his understanding of the relevant science and, well, not very impressive at all really.

[~TW~]

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. = always looks very impressive that. Less so when you realise his Ph.D. was in hydraulic engineering though. Add to that comments from scientists working in the field of evolution pointing out the errors in his understanding of the relevant science and, well, not very impressive at all really.

 And is that it    Was that a desperate attempt at a news flash.
~TW~

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If you do as God and Christ tells you, you will know if exists.

I take it by this you mean the seek and you will find...etc..etc.. kind of thing.

Well, maybe, if I did that I would come to believe.

So what? How would that demonstrate the objective existence of God?

[~TW~]

I take it by this you mean the seek and you will find...etc..etc.. kind of thing.

Well, maybe, if I did that I would come to believe.

So what? How would that demonstrate the objective existence of God?

So Stephen how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

So Stephen how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~

I always answer questions posed to me.

So to you I say.

1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?

3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered.

[~TW~]

I always answer questions posed to me.

So to you I say.

1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?

3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered.

 you see you totally avoided the question not surprised.Read it again .
~TW~

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

you see you totally avoided the question not surprised.Read it again .
~TW~

No I didn't. I answered it straight.

I notice though you didn't give answers to the points I made.

[Shaker]

No I didn't. I answered it straight.

I notice though you didn't give answers to mine.

Or mine.

[~TW~]

No I didn't. I answered it straight.

I notice though you didn't give answers to mine.

This is the first time I have posted to you so I reject that and note that you are  here just  like the rest not  to answer questions but to duck and dive and waste time.So we can put you in the dead loss book as well.
~TW~

[Shaker]

This is the first time I have posted to you so I reject that and note that you are  here just  like the rest not  to answer questions but to duck and dive and waste time.So we can put you in the dead loss book as well.
~TW~

How does giving a three part answer to your question constitute ducking, diving and wasting time? Your question was: you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts. To which Stephen replied:

I always answer questions posed to me.

So to you I say.

1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?

3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered.

Ducking, diving and wasting time strikes me as the perfect description of your inability to answer the two questions I have now asked you on two separate occasions (in #397 and #402)

[~TW~]

How does giving a three part answer to your question constitute ducking, diving and wasting time?

Ducking, diving and wasting time strikes me as the perfect description of your inability to answer the two questions I have now asked you on two separate occasions.

He did not answer the question he waffled same as you as he come back to correct himself No
~TW~

[Shaker]

He did not answer the question

Yes he did - in #408. I've just repeated his response in my previous post in the event that you missed it the first time around.

[~TW~]

Yes he did - in #408. I've just repeated his response in my previous post in the event that you missed it the first time around.

You really are a clown I did not ask him those questions. Might be a good idea if you went to specsavers.
~TW~

[Stranger]

You really are a clown I did not ask him those questions. Might be a good idea if you went to specsavers.

Why are you lying? He quite clearly answered your question.

[~TW~]

Why are you lying? He quite clearly answered your question.

So you need specsavers as well.
~TW~

[Stranger]

So you need specsavers as well.
~TW~

You asked: "you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts."

And you got his thoughts:

"1) I don't believe such a thing has ever happened.

2) If it did, how would you know the voice was God?

3) If it was God then he is a bit of a wanker, considering all the other prayers that seem to go unanswered."

Are you really too stupid to recognise this as an answer...?

[~TW~]

This might help                                         https://www.facebook.com/Specsavers/?fref=ts

~TW~

[Stranger]

...

Are you really too stupid to recognise this as an answer...?

This might help                                         https://www.facebook.com/Specsavers/?fref=ts

I'll take that as a "yes"...

[~TW~]

So Some kind of stranger how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.
~TW~

[Stranger]

So Some kind of stranger how about you answering a question for a change--- Try this. you go into a room on your own pray silently and request the lottery numbers you hear a voice which gives you six numbers which result in the lottery being won.Give us your thoughts.

My thoughts are: why should I bother answering when you are too stupid to recognise a plain English answer anyway?

[and that is an honest answer to your question]

[~TW~]

My thoughts are: why should I bother answering when you are too stupid to recognise a plain English answer anyway?

[and that is an honest answer to your question]

So your stuffed as well .We have all in all a right shower of s--- on here.
~TW~