Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Tue May 26, 2015 8:53 pm

davidroemer wrote:Has anyone wrote to their congressman?


WRITTEN, for crying out loud. Has anyone WRITTEN to ...

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Tue May 26, 2015 9:16 pm

davidroemer wrote:... Letter from David Jackson, editor of the AJP
This manuscript criticizes two articles on the relationship between entropy and biological evolution that were previously published in the American Journal of Physics. The manuscript fails to present valid and clear scientific arguments and is entirely unsuitable for publication.

The editor of the AJP calls your arguments rubbish. And I agree. There is no point in my asking Congress to override his opinion.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Tue May 26, 2015 10:26 pm

I asked to see the head of the National Science Foundation about this matter, and my request was ignored. I then asked to see Yvette Clarke, and her communications director (Scott) said he could not support me to that extent. I then sent Clarke the additional documentation at http://www.pseudoscience123.com and Scott said they would investigate.

I want to know what the result of that investigation is. If the documentation is worthless, as you say, all she has to do is tell me she is not interested. Why is she being discourteous to a member of her constituency? Her refusal to tell me is my grounds for complaining to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I'll be faxing my letter to Rush Holt to every member of the committee after I finish faxing it to about 200 other scientists. The theory that she thinks I am a crank and this is how she treats cranks is just one theory. The other theory is that she is helping to cover up this scandal.
David Roemer

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Tue May 26, 2015 10:41 pm

Here's my theory. Scott investigated by consulting with a scientist, and the standard advice scientists usually give about cranks is to ignore them. Most scientists have learned that being nice to a crank merely encourages them and then you will never get rid of them. Best to simply ignore them from the start.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Tue May 26, 2015 11:12 pm

These are three things that happened:
1) I gave Scott some initial information. He had no trouble telling me that he was not going to help me.
2) I then sent him further information that more fully spelled out the importance of getting the AJP to retract the article. Scott said there would be an investigation.
3) Scott refused to tell me what happened to the investigation.

These facts raise the question of why they don't tell me. One theory is that someone said my arguments are worthless and I don't deserve a response. Another theory is that it was determined my arguments are valid but it would politically incorrect not to cover up a mistake in a peer-reviewed physics journal that concerns evolution.

The other thing you should consider is the behavior of Prof. Richardson. Initially, he was friendly and willing to discuss the matter. Then, there was an abrupt change. He refused to get involved unless I paid him $400 per hour. I was not a stranger to him. We had a friend in common and my thesis advisor was still at NYU. Why didn't he meet with me to explain the situation?
David Roemer

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9698
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Pyrrho » Tue May 26, 2015 11:15 pm

I have removed the email address and telephone number from one of your posts.

Do not post email addresses and/or telephone numbers that are not your own.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Tue May 26, 2015 11:32 pm

davidroemer wrote:These are three things that happened:
1) I gave Scott some initial information. He had no trouble telling me that he was not going to help me.
2) I then sent him further information that more fully spelled out the importance of getting the AJP to retract the article. Scott said there would be an investigation.
3) Scott refused to tell me what happened to the investigation.

These facts raise the question of why they don't tell me. One theory is that someone said my arguments are worthless and I don't deserve a response.

Considering that most of those who have responded to you are saying that your arguments are wrong, I would rank that a more highly probably hypothesis.

But no need to take my word for it. All anyone needs to do is notice you are #20 on the crank list here:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy

You should be honored, being ranked right behind David Berlinski (yes, I have some of his books).

You even beat out Chris Sewell at #26.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22779
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 26, 2015 11:33 pm

Pyrrho wrote:I have removed the email address and telephone number from one of your posts.

Do not post email addresses and/or telephone numbers that are not your own.

202-456-1414
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Tue May 26, 2015 11:50 pm

Wow. I'm thrilled to be on that list. But it shows how nutty atheists can be. I am a mainstream scientist. I hate intelligent design and creationism. Something funny happened with Jerry Coyne. He criticize a college student for promoting creationism when, in fact, the kid was just being sarcastic. I got involved and the nut-job Coyne thought I am a creationist:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/nc-state-student-admits-that-his-antievolution-diatribe-was-a-satire-but-a-real-creationist-appears/
David Roemer

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 12:13 am

davidroemer wrote: But it shows how nutty atheists can be. I am a mainstream scientist.

davidroemer wrote:I believe that baby Jesus is alive for two reasons: 1) The large number of people who believe in life-after-death. 2) The historical Jesus.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... be-stupid/

You're mad as a hatter aren't you?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 12:44 am

I believe in life after death for three reasons even though there is no evidence for life after death. If it is mad to believe something when there is no evidence, then I am mad. The three reasons are this:
1) The arguments for the existence of an infinite being, God or Dao and many other terms.
2) All religions teach there is life after death.
3) People who don't believe, like Richard Dawkins, don't know or understand the argument for God's existence.

What do you call not understanding the arguments for God's existence?
David Roemer

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 12:49 am

davidroemer wrote: What do you call not understanding the arguments for God's existence?

A "time saving device"
:D

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 1:01 am

I call it ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Wed May 27, 2015 1:08 am

davidroemer wrote:I call it ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest.


Yes, you would. But you're a litle bit mad.

I call it getting on with normal things rather than wasting my life.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 1:08 am

Ya know Mr. Roemer, quite frequently you're making me think you just said: If you're ready to push the car, don't forget to butter the toast because frogs are mating in the fall.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 1:19 am

davidroemer wrote:I call it ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest.

So David? Can you please write a long review, for us, on these videos
:D

HINDUISM -- SCIENTIFICALLY proven RELIGION (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6iOy0kx2WQ

LORD RAMA PROOF ( EVERY HINDU MUST WATCH)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFJytz3qbJg

Unless, of course, you are ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Wed May 27, 2015 1:21 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Ya know Mr. Roemer, quite frequently you're making me think you just said: If you're ready to push the car, don't forget to butter the toast because frogs are mating in the fall.


... and gorgeous is listening to every word he says so that she can quote a "real" physicist later.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 1:26 am

Poodle wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Ya know Mr. Roemer, quite frequently you're making me think you just said: If you're ready to push the car, don't forget to butter the toast because frogs are mating in the fall.


... and gorgeous is listening to every word he says so that she can quote a "real" physicist later.

Because, according to gorgeous, "....the more resistance one receives is directly proportional to the likelihood that that person is right...." ?


:-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 1:38 am

This is an example of an atheist who is stupid. He only understands two theories of the mind-body problem:
And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )
David Roemer

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5373
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Austin Harper » Wed May 27, 2015 3:05 am

Austin Harper wrote:
davidroemer wrote:All you did was give me the thermodynamic definition of temperature. You did not address my comment that a pendulum doesn't have a temperature.

Ok, so you understand that temperature is defined by the average motion of the molecules (Temperature can be defined as T = mv2/3kB where T is the absolute temperature, m is the total mass of the gas, v is the average velocity of any individual molecule of the gas, and kB is the Boltzmann constant.) Now, is your pendulum made of molecules?

Did you get distracted? You forgot to tell me if your pendulum is made of molecules.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 5:31 am

No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 6:25 am

davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.


So you are saying I cannot take the temperature of a metal because in this particular shape and function, it is commonly called and/or known as a pendulum?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 8:58 am

David Roemer is a serial pest and nut case, simply seeking attention from anyone who pays him attention.

On October 1, 2014, I filed a canonical complaint against Cardinal Dolan for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Holy Shroud.

"I’v asked Nicano Austiraco, Gary Culpepper, Paul Gondreau, James Keating, Sandra Keating, and Tomas Petri to resign from the Academy of Catholic Theology to protest the actions of fellow members Stephen Barr, who writes about evolutionary biology on the pages of First Things, and Russell Reno, who is the editor."

His last job was teaching science at High School for 14 years. Feel sorry for those students.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Wed May 27, 2015 9:41 am

davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.


Is that what this is all about? A SODDING WORD GAME?

David, you need help. Professional help. Urgently. Your head is in danger of implosion.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 10:48 am

Consider two miracles.In the first one, I cause the air molecules to drift away from some point and I create a vacuum. In the second miracle, I cause a collection of amino acids to make a protein. The first violates thermodynamics and the second does not. In the first I'v changed the entropy and temperature of a gas. A collection of amino acids does not have a temperature or an entropy. Entropy is defined in terms of temperatures.

There was a follow up to my complaint against Fr. Nicano Austiraco, who is a biology professor at Providence College. I met in person Fr. Austriaco's superior in the order, Fr. Brian Mulcahey. I explained why Fr. Austriaco was lying about the AJP article. Fr. Mulcahy said he would ask Fr. Austriaco about it. Fr. Mulcahy never got back to me about what Fr. Ausriaco said. My guess is that Fr. Austriaco told Fr. Mulcahy I was right but that he should not get involved. Fr. Mulcahy was intelligent enough to understand why a collection of amino acids does not have a temperature. I only had to explain it once.

This should make you all feel better because it is not only atheists that are behaving badly. This also gives you another person to call in addition to your congressman and the physicists on the editorial board of Skeptics Society. You can call Fr. Brian Mulcahy, O.P.. He is on LinkedIN.
David Roemer

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Wed May 27, 2015 12:42 pm

Poodle wrote:
davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.

Is that what this is all about? A SODDING WORD GAME?

You nailed it. David clearly understands that an object made of molecules has a temperature. What he is complaining about is that a mental concept does not have a temperature. I mentioned that several pages ago in this thread, but apparently he likes to play this game, with whomever he can trick into playing it with him.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 27, 2015 12:52 pm

davidroemer wrote: This also gives you another person to call in addition to your congressman and the physicists on the editorial board of Skeptics Society. You can call Fr. Brian Mulcahy, O.P.. He is on LinkedIN.


Ring Ring Ring
Hi there, you don't know me, but have you ever heard of David Roemer?
"No."
"Um...well um....er....um....thanks for your time."

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by busterggi » Wed May 27, 2015 12:54 pm

davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.


With a lack of understanding about the nature of matter that a Physic 100 level class teaches no wonder youre being treated like a whackjob.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Wed May 27, 2015 1:08 pm

busterggi wrote:
davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.

With a lack of understanding about the nature of matter that a Physic 100 level class teaches no wonder youre being treated like a whackjob.

It boggles the mind to ponder him teaching this nonsense in public schools for 14 years.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 1:26 pm

It boggles my mind that you all prefer speculating about what people will say about me instead of actually contacting these people. I am publicly calling Michael Shermer a liar. I am proving he knows about this accusation by publishing my fax receipts. He is ignoring this accusation, but you are not. You are insulting me. Why not back up these insults with facts. Call Lawrence Krauss and ask him what he thinks of the AJP article. You are a bunch of scaredy-cats.
David Roemer

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Wed May 27, 2015 2:21 pm

davidroemer wrote:I am publicly calling Michael Shermer a liar. I am proving he knows about this accusation by publishing my fax receipts. He is ignoring this accusation, but you are not.

Yes I am. Perhaps you might consider starting a new thread with your accusation in the title, and maybe it won't be ignored.

davidroemer wrote: Call Lawrence Krauss and ask him what he thinks of the AJP article.

I have no need to bother such a respected scientist with your nonsense.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gord » Wed May 27, 2015 2:58 pm

xouper wrote:...you are #20 on the crank list here:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy

They link back to this very thread as evidence of him being a "“Creationist crank” (Ѻ)". :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
itslarry
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:54 pm
Custom Title: lord high magistrate
Location: thebiblebelt

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by itslarry » Wed May 27, 2015 3:23 pm

davidroemer wrote:It boggles my mind that you all prefer speculating about what people will say about me instead of actually contacting these people. I am publicly calling Michael Shermer a liar. I am proving he knows about this accusation by publishing my fax receipts. He is ignoring this accusation, but you are not. You are insulting me. Why not back up these insults with facts. Call Lawrence Krauss and ask him what he thinks of the AJP article. You are a bunch of scaredy-cats.

The ego you must have demanding all these people have meetings and personally answering you..... :shock:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 3:49 pm

He also prides himself in (supposedly) having been instrumental in one person losing/resigning from his job... :roll:

After reading this: "2) I then sent him further information that more fully spelled out the importance of getting the AJP to retract the article. Scott said there would be an investigation.", I guess I know who the subject of that investigation was. :heh:


Maybe no response is a clear response. And a kind one...
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Wed May 27, 2015 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Wed May 27, 2015 3:49 pm

davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.

"A liquid" is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a glass of water on a table. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a liquid?" A liquid does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a clock, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.

Am I doing it right?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 3:50 pm

:lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 3:51 pm

http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics

This is a link to my article explaining why the AJP article "Entropy and evolution" is absurd. There have been over 2600 hits.Why doesn't any physicist write a rebuttal? This organization is dedicated to truth in science. Why doesn't Krauss write a rebuttal of the argument? Is he too busy?

The first person I told about the absurdity of the article was Emory Bunn who wrote a note "improving" the absurd calculation. His email response to me was that he didn't want to discuss it. No one wants to discuss it because everyone knows that the AJP article is nonsense. This is like two other stories, one real and the other fictional. The fictional one is about the emperor who wore no clothes. The true one is the Holocaust.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed May 27, 2015 4:05 pm

From his link:
Correspondence with the American Scientific Affiliation: A Network of Christians in Science

On one of the forums of the ASA, I started a topic about the AJP article on January 24, 2012, and had numerous exchanges with Randy Isaac, who is the Executive Director of the ASA and a physicist who writes about evolution. The thrust of his comments and responses is that there is nothing wrong with the AJP article and that I don’t understand thermodynamics. I found his comments unresponsive. For example, I would say, "A Boeing 747 does not have a temperature." Isaac would reply, "Yes, it does." I asked Robert Kaita, the President of the ASA, to assign a moderator to our exchanges, but this request was ignored. I also tried to get support from the members of the ASA by contacting them directly. Only two of the hundreds of members I contacted supported my campaign to get the AJP to retract the "Entropy and evolution". One wrote:
[...]
On July 19, 2012, Robert Kaita told me I was misusing the membership contact information. I continued to contact my fellow members, and my membership privileges were revoked.
(emphasis mine)


I'd guess by now it's more than just a few hundreds Mr. Roemer contacted. Still only two supporters? Or should I call them "responsive ones", since you seem to be considering the voice of reason "unintelligible"...


ETA Is Emory Bunn the author of what I snipped out of this quote for length and what you quoted earlier in this thread?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5373
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Austin Harper » Wed May 27, 2015 4:20 pm

davidroemer wrote:No a pendulum is not made of molecules. A pendulum is a mental being, not a real being. Imagine a clock of the wall. I point to it and ask, what is the temperature of that object. The answer is that it is at room temperature. But suppose I ask the question, "What is the temperature of a clock?" A clock does not have a temperature. But if I ask what is the temperature of a liquid, the answer is that you measure it with a thermometer.

Oh, you're arguing about the concept of a pendulum and not about a specific pendulum? Well then, no I guess it doesn't have a temperature in the same way that the Platonic solids don't have temperatures. How could they? And more to the point, why would it matter?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Wed May 27, 2015 4:41 pm

There is no such thing as a specific pendulum. A pendulum is purely Platonic. Only human beings are aware of pendulums when they observe a bob and a string. A dog does not see a pendulum. He only sees bobs and stings.

Compare a deck of cards with a stack of 52 napkins. The napkins have a temperature and an entropy. So does the stack of playing cards. However, the entropy of the cards is not related to 52 factorial. This is how absurd the AJP paper is. The AJP paper makes up a probability for the evolution of life, then multiplies this by the Boltzmann constant to get an entropy in joules/degree.
David Roemer