SamHB
→To the person who wrote something here that got reverted and vaped
m+166
SamHB
→To the person who wrote something here that got reverted and vaped: R. C. Tolman believes they can be reconciled.
+508
Aschlafly
→To the person who wrote something here that got reverted and vaped: The Theory of Relativity cannot be reconciled with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Search and both and the lack of reconciliation is striking. The Book of Genesis des
+366
SamHB
New section on someones ill-considered change
+1,940
Karajou
Reverted edits by Praiseourlordtrump (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly
m-334
(username removed)
(edit summary removed)
+334
Aschlafly
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: Your assertion is less scientific than assertions in the Bible. Your assertion that "[i]t is possible ... that the gases could separate" is not falsifiable.
+264
(username removed)
Replied to comment
+653
Aschlafly
→Recent reverison by User:Aschlafly: The claim that the Second Law would not hold over infinite time periods is not falsifiable, and hence not science
+442
(username removed)
Replied to comment
+890
Aschlafly
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: As to the point about quantum mechanics, it provides a better understanding of the Second Law than what predated QM.
+409
SamHB
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: reply
+1,001
(username removed)
Replied to comment
+508
Aschlafly
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: reply
+582
(username removed)
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: new section
+837
Aschlafly
→100 billion: There is an appropriate reluctance to delete educational information that some may find to be enlightening.
+239
PeterKa
→100 billion
m+8
PeterKa
→100 Billion: r
+237
Conservative
→Ressurection a violation?
+4
Conservative
→Ressurection a violation?
-3
Conservative
→Ressurection a violation?
+99
Conservative
→Ressurection a violation?
+217
Conservative
→Ressurection a violation?
+5
Conservative
→Ressurection a violation?
+404
JamesWS
→100 Billion
+218
Aschlafly
→This discussion has been dormant for a while. If no refutation of evolution is presented in the next few days based on a proper application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I will remove the part of the article in question.
+196
Aschlafly
→Discussion about order/disorder: I repeatedly addressed the arguments, yet I don't recall any response anyone explaining '''''why''''' a perpetual motion machine is impossible. The reason is
+451
LucoDaw
→Zero sum game ==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==
-634
LucoDaw
→Zero sum game ==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==: new section
+634
LucoDaw
→Zero sum game ==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==: new section
+634
Jpatt
Reverted edits by Enidblyton11 (talk) to last revision by Randall7
m+944
Enidblyton11
no edit summary
-944
Aschlafly
→Discussion about order/disorder
m-1
Aschlafly
→Discussion about order/disorder: If you agree this type of perpetual motion machine is impossible, then why do you think it is impossible, if not due to the Second Law?
+767
Aschlafly
moved Talk:Second law of thermodynamics to Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics over redirect: this should use capitalized first letters
mRandall7
→My answers to Randall7
+1,307