Talk:Argument from the second law of thermodynamics
(Difference between revisions)
Daemonowner (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: 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) | : 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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | i see your point, perhaps you could use it for amusement but then go ahead to debunk it. [[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]] | ||
Revision as of 14:31, 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)
i see your point, perhaps you could use it for amusement but then go ahead to debunk it. Daemonowner
