Page history
August 29, 2018
→To the person who wrote something here that got reverted and vaped
m+166
→To the person who wrote something here that got reverted and vaped: R. C. Tolman believes they can be reconciled.
+508
August 28, 2018
→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
New section on someones ill-considered change
+1,940
August 27, 2018
Reverted edits by Praiseourlordtrump (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly
m-334
(edit summary removed)
+334
September 27, 2016
→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
Replied to comment
+653
→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
Replied to comment
+890
→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
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: reply
+1,001
September 26, 2016
September 25, 2016
Replied to comment
+508
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: reply
+582
→Recent reversion by User:Aschlafly: new section
+837
August 3, 2016
August 2, 2016
February 9, 2014
→100 billion: There is an appropriate reluctance to delete educational information that some may find to be enlightening.
+239
→100 billion
m+8
→100 Billion: r
+237
→Ressurection a violation?
+4
→Ressurection a violation?
-3
→Ressurection a violation?
+99
→Ressurection a violation?
+217
→Ressurection a violation?
+5
→Ressurection a violation?
+404
→100 Billion
+218
February 8, 2014
February 7, 2014
October 11, 2012
September 29, 2012
July 13, 2012
July 12, 2012
→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
→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
July 11, 2012
July 7, 2012
July 6, 2012
→Zero sum game ==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==
-634
→Zero sum game ==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==: new section
+634
→Zero sum game ==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==: new section
+634
July 4, 2012
June 18, 2012
June 16, 2012
June 15, 2012
→Discussion about order/disorder
m-1
→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
moved Talk:Second law of thermodynamics to Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics over redirect: this should use capitalized first letters
m→My answers to Randall7
+1,307