Talk:Argument from the second law of thermodynamics

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
since this argument is nonsense, i propose a sort of tongue in cheek nonsense response; something along the lines of "yeah, well creationism breaks the third!". [[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]]
 
since this argument is nonsense, i propose a sort of tongue in cheek nonsense response; something along the lines of "yeah, well creationism breaks the third!". [[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]]
 +
 +
: The 2LoT argument may be bogus, but it's regularly brought up by people who simply don't know any better. So IMHO a snarky response is uncalled for. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:23, 3 October 2010 (CDT)

Revision as of 11:23, 3 October 2010

This should be merged into Thermodynamics. --Arensb 08:43, 5 June 2010 (CDT)

response to creationists

since this argument is nonsense, i propose a sort of tongue in cheek nonsense response; something along the lines of "yeah, well creationism breaks the third!". Daemonowner

The 2LoT argument may be bogus, but it's regularly brought up by people who simply don't know any better. So IMHO a snarky response is uncalled for. --Arensb 11:23, 3 October 2010 (CDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox