On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

That ID is still successful as bait should should be

How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
belief?

There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
it.

That's it.

It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as
evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
fundamental physical concepts and axioms.

But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
built upon. Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual
reality. Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
anywhere.

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-25 17:29:22 +0000, RonO said:

On 7/25/2025 12:13 PM, erik simpson wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

  RonO wrote:

That ID is still successful as bait should should be

How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
belief?

There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
it.

That's it.

It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as
evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
fundamental physical concepts and axioms.

But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
built upon.  Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual
reality.  Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed
arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
anywhere.

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science.  Many
are working on this now however,  so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator  or air conditioner?

It is the usual creationist projection. Their use of thermodynamics
has always been fundamentally flawed, but they can't take
responsibility for that. It has to be the thermodynamics that is the
issue. It seems crazy that the creationist misconceptions still exist
after decades of failure for the creationist stupidity. ID perps like Dembski tried to revive the misconceptions about the second law and
failed a couple decades ago. That burned out soon after the turn of
the century. It is amazing that there are still IDiots like IDentity
when the bait and switch is all that ID has been used for, for over 2 decades, and the ID perps are running the bogus scam on their
creationist support base.

Almost everyone finds thermodynamics difficult. We can set creationists
aside, because they don't understand anything much, but even competent scientists, as I imagine James Tour is, can spout a lot of nonsense
about things they don't understand. As Arnold Sommerfeld put it, "Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it,
you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you
think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third
time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that
time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you any more."

It's the 2nd law that gives problems. The 0th and 1st laws are
conceptually straightforward and easy to accept, and the 3rd isn't
really a law at all in the sense the others are. Statistical
thermodynamics, and particularly the 2nd law, is conceptually
straightforward, but the underlying mathematics is difficult; by
contrast, the mathematical analysis of the classical treatment (Carnot
cycles etc.) is not too hard, but the underlying concepts are obscure.
Most serious scientists who need to know the 2nd law end up where
Sommerfeld put us: The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't
bother you any more.

Most of us who end up as research chemists, like James Tour and myself,
have studied thermodynamics to the extent that we may not fully
understand it but we accept that it is soundly based and we know how it
affects what is possible and what isn't.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:55:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <identity@invalid.org>:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

That ID is still successful as bait should should be

How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
belief?

There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
it.

That's it.

It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as
evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
fundamental physical concepts and axioms.

But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
built upon. Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual >reality. Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed >arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
anywhere.

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to state clearly at least two of
the "concepts and axioms" which are "fundamentally flawed",
along with the specific flaws you imagine exist and why you
consider them to be flaws? Precisely and in detail, please.

Thanks.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-26 13:09:26 +0000, RonO said:

On 7/26/2025 4:45 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2025-07-25 17:29:22 +0000, RonO said:

On 7/25/2025 12:13 PM, erik simpson wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

  RonO wrote:

That ID is still successful as bait should should be

How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
belief?

There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
it.

That's it.

It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as
evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
fundamental physical concepts and axioms.

But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
built upon.  Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual >>>>> reality.  Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed >>>>> arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
anywhere.

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science.  Many
are working on this now however,  so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator  or air conditioner?

It is the usual creationist projection.  Their use of thermodynamics
has always been fundamentally flawed, but they can't take
responsibility for that.  It has to be the thermodynamics that is the
issue.  It seems crazy that the creationist misconceptions still exist
after decades of failure for the creationist stupidity.  ID perps like
Dembski tried to revive the misconceptions about the second law and
failed a couple decades ago.  That burned out soon after the turn of
the century. It is amazing that there are still IDiots like IDentity
when the bait and switch is all that ID has been used for, for over 2
decades, and the ID perps are running the bogus scam on their
creationist support base.

Almost everyone finds thermodynamics difficult. We can set creationists
aside, because they don't understand anything much, but even competent
scientists, as I imagine James Tour is, can spout a lot of nonsense
about things they don't understand. As Arnold Sommerfeld put it,
"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it,
you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you
think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third
time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that
time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you any more."

It's the 2nd law that gives problems. The 0th and 1st laws are
conceptually straightforward and easy to accept, and the 3rd isn't
really a law at all in the sense the others are. Statistical
thermodynamics, and particularly the 2nd law, is conceptually
straightforward, but the underlying mathematics is difficult; by
contrast, the mathematical analysis of the classical treatment (Carnot
cycles etc.) is not too hard, but the underlying concepts are obscure.
Most serious scientists who  need to know the 2nd law end up where
Sommerfeld put us: The third time you go through it, you know you don't
understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't
bother you any more.

Most of us who end up as research chemists, like James Tour and myself,
have studied thermodynamics to the extent that we may not fully
understand it but we accept that it is soundly based and we know how it
affects what is possible and what isn't.

Pretty much where I have been most of my scientific career. My PhD
committee made me take the physical chemistry for chem majors because
it was the only chemistry class that I had never taken in college.
Most biologists only take the physical chemistry for non majors, if
they ever take physical chemistry. They said that it would be good for
me. I was over 5 years from my college calculus classes by then and I
had my calculus book open along side the chemistry text most of the
time. We not only went over the theory, but had to derive the
equations. I can honestly say that I have never had to use that
knowledge again in my science career. I do not fully understand it,
but I have a working knowlege that it is soundly based, and that
creationists like IDentity are lost causes.

I quoted Arnold Sommerfeld above. He was of course a very great
contributor to the theory of thermodynamics, but it's worth noting that
others said similar things. Keith Laidler, in The World of Physical
Chemistry, described the struggles that most of the great names of the
19th century -- Kelvin, Clausius, Rankine, Helmholtz, and even Gibbs
(though in his case he probably understood it very well but couldn't
express his thoughts understandably) -- went through in developing the
2nd law. He said that Kelvin, "who had made such important
constributions to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, never appreciated the
idea of entropy."


--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-26 19:27:59 +0000, IDentity said:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?

If you use the current flawed thermodynamics to predict the
temperatures which are generated by these devices, you may find that
they do no match the actual temperatures that are generated. Flaw in
2nd law.

That is a vague hand-waving argument with no supporting data. Can you
point to a serious paper in a serious journal that presents your point
of view? Do you know of any real scientists who agree with you? Who?


--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?

If you use the current flawed thermodynamics to predict the
temperatures which are generated by these devices, you may find that
they do no match the actual temperatures that are generated. Flaw in
2nd law.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 21:27:59 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <identity@invalid.org>:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?

If you use the current flawed thermodynamics to predict the
temperatures which are generated by these devices, you may find that
they do no match the actual temperatures that are generated. Flaw in
2nd law.

IOW, you cannot support your assertions and evade the
question by doing the usual "Nutbar Moonwalk": "You look it
up if you want to know; I can't be bothered!". It would be
amusing if it hadn't been used by nutbars to evade questions
dozens or hundreds of times.

But let me guess; your "logic" involves something about
"closed systems"?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 21:59:47 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com>:

On 2025-07-26 19:27:59 +0000, IDentity said:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?

If you use the current flawed thermodynamics to predict the
temperatures which are generated by these devices, you may find that
they do no match the actual temperatures that are generated. Flaw in
2nd law.

That is a vague hand-waving argument with no supporting data. Can you
point to a serious paper in a serious journal that presents your point
of view? Do you know of any real scientists who agree with you? Who?

Since I'm sure he/she/it will ignore those questions, that
would be, in order:
"No, I can't."
"No, I don't."
As for "Who?": <"PHHBBTTT!">

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:18 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:55:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <identity@invalid.org>:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

That ID is still successful as bait should should be

How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
belief?

There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
it.

That's it.

It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as
evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
fundamental physical concepts and axioms.

But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
built upon. Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual >>reality. Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed >>arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
anywhere.

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to state clearly at least two of
the "concepts and axioms" which are "fundamentally flawed",
along with the specific flaws you imagine exist and why you
consider them to be flaws? Precisely and in detail, please.

Thanks.

Still waiting...

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 13:58:23 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

On 7/26/25 12:27 PM, IDentity wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?

If you use the current flawed thermodynamics to predict the
temperatures which are generated by these devices, you may find that
they do no match the actual temperatures that are generated. Flaw in
2nd law.

So you do believe that we understand that refrigerators actually work.
Bravo! But you also think that they don't work as expected?

"...you...think..." may be an unsupportable assumption.

The people
who design and build refrigerators aren't physicists. They are
engineers who use the calculations based on the flawed physics. Do you >realize that you could become rich by designing a better unit? Why do
you suppose this hasn't happened?

As always, the question is the answer.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

erik simpson wrote:

On 7/26/25 12:27 PM, IDentity wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science.  Many
are working on this now however,  so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
Do you use a refrigerator  or air conditioner?

If you use the current flawed thermodynamics to predict the
temperatures which are generated by these devices, you may find that
they do no match the actual temperatures that are generated.  Flaw in
2nd law.

So you do believe that we understand that refrigerators actually work. Bravo!  But you also think that they don't work as expected?  The people who design and build refrigerators aren't physicists.  They are
engineers who use the calculations based on the flawed physics.  Do you realize that you could become rich by designing a better unit?  Why do
you suppose this hasn't happened?

I'm going to toss out a wild guess here. The answer is quite similar to
the reason the people who talk about the flaws in radiometric dating
don't design a nuclear reactor that will finally put an end to all of
our aircraft carriers spontaneously exploding.

Chris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 10:55:25 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:18 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:55:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <identity@invalid.org>:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

That ID is still successful as bait should should be

How many people do you *Still* fool into believing that
abiogenesis is real science, instead of a religious
belief?

There's no facts backing up abiogenesis, you simply like
it.

That's it.

It's actually quite simple to prove that abiogenesis, as well as >>>evolution without intelligent control, is impossible, using
fundamental physical concepts and axioms.

But not the current concepts and axioms which mainstream science is
built upon. Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual >>>reality. Trying to prove a theory is wrong using the very same flawed >>>arguments which the theory is based on obviously doesn't lead
anywhere.

So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected >>>first, before there is any hope for real progress in science. Many
are working on this now however, so I guess it's only a matter of
time.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to state clearly at least two of
the "concepts and axioms" which are "fundamentally flawed",
along with the specific flaws you imagine exist and why you
consider them to be flaws? Precisely and in detail, please.

Thanks.

Still waiting...

<Crickets...>

So, just more of your usual bullshit? OK; thanks for
confirming.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)