Joined: Dec. 2006
Granville Sewell has to resort to his imagination to find people who like his video:
For me, the real argument for intelligent design has always been extremely simple, and doesnít require any advanced mathematics or microbiology to grasp. The video below makes this argument in the simplest, clearest way I can make it. My uncle Harry and aunt Martha like the video, and canít understand why so many intelligent scientists arenít impressed by this very simple argument.
If I could figure out a way to use some more advanced mathematics in my arguments, if I could figure out a way to restate the basic point in such a way that uncle Harry and aunt Martha couldnít understand it, I might make some progress (I donít really have an uncle Harry or an aunt Martha, by the way, but many people do). Perhaps it would help if I linked to my resume, or to my finite element program, to show that I am capable of doing more advanced mathematics, even if I havenít used any of it in this video.
You are barking up the wrong tree. The lack of more advanced mathematics in your argument is not the root of your problem. Good physics does not (necessarily) require sophisticated math. Einstein's special relativity uses 7th-grade algebra, yet it s quite profound as a physical theory.
Your problem is that you are not a good physicist. You do not understand statistical physics. Here are just a couple of points.
* There are simple examples of entropy compensation that you seem to be unaware of.
* Your "X-entropy" is not a new concept. It is a bastardized version of the familiar, run-of-the-mill entropy associated with the number of configurations of atoms in real space.
There are a few threads at the Skeptical Zone, where well-qualified physicists and chemists dissected your technical arguments in great detail. You were invited to participate but you did not have the courage to show up.
A Second Look at the Second Law...
Granville Sewell vs. Bob Lloyd.
What a clown.
If you are not:
please Logout Ľ