"raven1" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:28:29 -0500, "adman" wrote:
|
|
| "raven1" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:25:30 -0500, "adman" wrote:
| |
| |
| | "raven1" wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500, "adman"
wrote:
| | |
| | | Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of
| origins.
| | |
| | | What, in your understanding, is the 2LoT?
| | |
| | | 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
| | system.
| | | 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
| | | 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have
originated
| | | supernaturally.
| | |
| | | Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, rendering the
| | | remainder of your post moot.
| |
| | I see you finally understand the defination of "Moot"
| |
| | I've understood it all along. It's good to see that you agree with me
| | about its applicability to your post.
|
| Can you show me where i said "i agree"?
|
| By stating that I understand the definition of "moot" you were
| implicitly stating that my usage of it was correct.

Only a WOMAN would ASSume that.

|
| If not, it is just more intellectual dishonesty.
|
| You wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if you tripped over it.
| Every one of your posts is full of scientific inaccuracies, logical
| fallacies, and (as when you posted a link about the meniscus that
| contradicted your own point) outright "own goals".

Incorrect. you frequently show the world your dishonest posting tactics.