| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:02:30 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,529 |
That ID is still successful as bait should should be
-aRonO 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.
Every last abiogenesis hypothesis that has ever been
tested has been falsified. Yet, you believe anyways.
Maybe, just maybe I.D. persists for the exact same
reason that abiogenesis persists, and the secret to it's
defeat is to fix YOU and not them....
"You're doing the exact same thing I'm doing, only you
know you're faith based and I don't! That makes me
better than you!"
This is NOT proven to be an effective argument yet, and
it's looking more & more like it will never work.
Fix you.
What a nut job.
I have always contended that the origin of life work is
among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
On 7/23/25 5:35 PM, RonO wrote:
What a nut job.
Oh, okay, just cite when & where abiogenesis has been observed:
-a-a-a-a {crickets chirping}
So you think only a "nut job" would point out the fact that
abiogenesis is faith based, not science based, yet you have
zero science and only faith behind your beliefs...
Wow. That's crazy!-a You're a nut job!
I have always contended that the origin of life work is among the
weakest of scientific endeavors.
It's not scientific. Period. It's religion. It's an article
of faith.
Lol!-a Even pretending that you're not faith based you reveal
the fact that you are!
See a nut job, no claims of having to observe anything.
On 7/23/25 9:15 PM, RonO wrote:
See a nut job, no claims of having to observe anything.
Lol!-a "I'm not a nut job. I have faith without evidence! I
don't need to see anything, not with my faith!"
YOU are faith based. You are. Fix you. Once you deconstruct
YOUR problem, once you correct YOUR faith based beliefs,
then you can complain about anyone else's.
On 7/23/25 5:35 PM, RonO wrote:weakest of scientific endeavors.
What a nut job.
Oh, okay, just cite when & where abiogenesis has been observed:
{crickets chirping}
So you think only a "nut job" would point out the fact that
abiogenesis is faith based, not science based, yet you have
zero science and only faith behind your beliefs...
Wow. That's crazy! You're a nut job!
I have always contended that the origin of life work is among the
That ID is still successful as bait should should be enough evidence
that the current generation of "adults" responsible for the education of
the next generation are pretty badly off in terms of honest, integrity,
and competency.
Apparently the generation currently being educated uses AI in order to
stop thinking.-a Are they really getting away with Chatbots doing their homework?-a How many different summaries does an AI give for a particular question?-a Do teachers need to be able to run seaches of Chatbot answers
to detect stupid and dishonest students?-a My guess is that students will
be required to turn in their essays and short answers on memory sticks
so that the teacher can easily load them into a search program.
Apparently this generation is even using AI to make decisions on what
junk food to ingest.-a This article claims that 70% of teens use AI companions and half use them regularly.-a ChatGPT and Claude are usually used to answer questions, but they are also being used as AI companions
that teens have conversations with.
This seems nuts, but IDiocy and the scientific creationism that came
before it have always depended on the rubes wanting to be told the answers.-a AI is just another source for answers, and we likely have to start a program to determine what quailty of answers these people are getting.-a ID perps and the Scientific Creationists before them were
never a good source for answers, and neither were the religious leaders
that believed the junk.
Ron Okimoto
See
On 7/24/25 8:02 AM, RonO wrote:
See
Repeating your idiocy doesn't make it any less idiotic.
You need to concentrate on yourself. You are faith based.
You have entirely faith-based beliefs, such as abiogenesis.
IDers believe things for the same reasons that you operate
on faith:-a You like the answer.
Fix YOU and then "Argue" (if that's what you want to call
it) with IDers who aren't here anyway.
On 7/23/25 5:35 PM, RonO wrote:weakest of scientific endeavors.
What a nut job.
Oh, okay, just cite when & where abiogenesis has been observed:
{crickets chirping}
So you think only a "nut job" would point out the fact that
abiogenesis is faith based, not science based, yet you have
zero science and only faith behind your beliefs...
Wow. That's crazy! You're a nut job!
I have always contended that the origin of life work is among the
This seems to be your usual projection.
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.
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.
On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed? Do
-a 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.-a Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual
reality.-a 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.-a Many
are working on this now however,-a so I guess it's only a matter of
time.
you use a refrigerator-a or air conditioner?
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:In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
a 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.a Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual
reality.a 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.a Many
are working on this now however,a so I guess it's only a matter of
time.
Do you use a refrigeratora 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.
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:In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
-a 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.-a Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual
reality.-a 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.-a Many
are working on this now however,-a so I guess it's only a matter of
time.
Do you use a refrigerator-a or air conditioner?
It is the usual creationist projection.-a Their use of thermodynamics
has always been fundamentally flawed, but they can't take
responsibility for that.-a It has to be the thermodynamics that is the
issue.-a It seems crazy that the creationist misconceptions still exist
after decades of failure for the creationist stupidity.-a ID perps like
Dembski tried to revive the misconceptions about the second law and
failed a couple decades ago.-a 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-a 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.
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.
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:In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed? >>>> Do you use a refrigeratora or air conditioner?
a 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.a Most of these concepts and axioms, such as
thermodynamics, are fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with actual >>>>> reality.a 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.a Many
are working on this now however,a so I guess it's only a matter of
time.
It is the usual creationist projection.a Their use of thermodynamics
has always been fundamentally flawed, but they can't take
responsibility for that.a It has to be the thermodynamics that is the
issue.a It seems crazy that the creationist misconceptions still exist
after decades of failure for the creationist stupidity.a ID perps like
Dembski tried to revive the misconceptions about the second law and
failed a couple decades ago.a 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 whoa 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.
On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
Do you use a refrigerator or air conditioner?
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:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
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.
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:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
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.
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:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
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?
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:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
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.
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:Perhaps you'd be so good as to state clearly at least two of
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.
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.
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:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
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.
On 7/26/25 12:27 PM, IDentity wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpsonSo you do believe that we understand that refrigerators actually work. >Bravo! But you also think that they don't work as expected?
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
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.
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.
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?
On 7/26/25 12:27 PM, IDentity wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:13:55 -0700, erik simpsonSo you do believe that we understand that refrigerators actually work. Bravo!-a But you also think that they don't work as expected?-a The people who design and build refrigerators aren't physicists.-a They are
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/25/25 9:55 AM, IDentity wrote:
In what respect do you regard thermodynamics as fundamentally flawed?
So, the current scientific concepts and axioms need to be corrected
first, before there is any hope for real progress in science.-a Many
are working on this now however,-a so I guess it's only a matter of
time.
Do you use a refrigerator-a 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.-a Flaw in
2nd law.
engineers who use the calculations based on the flawed physics.-a Do you realize that you could become rich by designing a better unit?-a Why do
you suppose this hasn't happened?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:18 -0700, the following appeared<Crickets...>
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:55:36 +0200, the following appearedStill waiting...
in talk.origins, posted by IDentity <identity@invalid.org>:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:33:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Perhaps you'd be so good as to state clearly at least two of
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.
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.