Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 678:
Line 678: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 13:22, September 23, 2016
, 13:22, September 23, 2016Replied to comment
:I don't you have had time to read my comment, so I will wait, but if you have do you want to amend the page or shall I? (This of assumes you have not come up with a counter-argument. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
:I don't you have had time to read my comment, so I will wait, but if you have do you want to amend the page or shall I? (This of assumes you have not come up with a counter-argument. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
::A "counter-argument" does not constitute proof. Need proof here before the page gets changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
::A "counter-argument" does not constitute proof. Need proof here before the page gets changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
Ok, I thought I had proved that the second law does not apply to an open system, which forms the basis of the counterexample to evolution in the article. If you can tell me what the mistake is in my example above, we can proceed further. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:22, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
(username removed)