Somebody picked the wrong bluff to make

[Darth Wong]

Dunno, there were two YECs at my at my college, one mechanical engineer, the other metalurgical, who, despite being juniors, still could not grasp that the second law of thermodynamics only involved closed systems until I spelled it out for them in baby steps.

There was also a kid getting his Master's in Geology. SDSM&T was considered to be a pretty good college at that time.

...they just ignore data that is not relevant to their world view, and the rest of us debated how they passed their courses.

Perhaps they don't do thermodynamics until second year at this school. Either that or these kids just become practised at giving answers on tests which they actually think are wrong. The arrogance necessary to think you know more than the entire profession even when you're just a student is perfectly normal for a YEC.

In any case, this particular guy is clearly lying. Anyone who says that he learned about entropy in "a discussion with my prof" in an advanced thermodynamics course when he could not possibly pass a basic thermodynamics course without thorough understanding of same is a clear and obvious liar.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Perhaps they don't do thermodynamics until second year at this school.

For what it's worth, the physics program at my school doesn't teach thermodynamics until Physics III, which is a second-year class. I don't know how engineering programs go, but that does seem entirely plausible.

[PainRack]

What about the doublethink effect? Like how 1984 describes it, 2+2=4 when the Party requires it and =5 in other scenarios.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

What about the doublethink effect? Like how 1984 describes it, 2+2=4 when the Party requires it and =5 in other scenarios.

Sounds like the recent Evolution vs. Creation debate at UTSA. The creation side had a chemistry doctoral degree. The Second Law of Thermodynamics bullshit showed up I think very early of his presentation. Early enough to make me get uninterested of the whole debate.

Good thing he doesn't teach here.

[Darth Wong]

What about the doublethink effect? Like how 1984 describes it, 2+2=4 when the Party requires it and =5 in other scenarios.

Sounds like the recent Evolution vs. Creation debate at UTSA. The creation side had a chemistry doctoral degree. The Second Law of Thermodynamics bullshit showed up I think very early of his presentation. Early enough to make me get uninterested of the whole debate.

Good thing he doesn't teach here.

It's possible for a zealot to convince himself of just about anything. I would personally ask someone like that if he's ever tried submitting a paper with his "new" understanding of how thermodynamics works.

Sometimes I wonder if people like that know they're lying but figure that saving souls is worth the minor crime of lying. Or perhaps I just read a bit too much Dostoyevsky in university.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

It's possible for a zealot to convince himself of just about anything. I would personally ask someone like that if he's ever tried submitting a paper with his "new" understanding of how thermodynamics works.

Behe has openly admitted he doesn't even do work to prove his IC. Paul Chien, another Discovery Institute fellow, cites newspaper articles to support his shit. The Wedge Project stated that its First Phase needed 5 years of research for sufficient evidence of ID, ignoring the ridiculous part of assuming results popping out in limited time, there hasn't even been any work shown up ever since the project was proposed.

Some debaters who pretend Evolution hasn't been proved often (usually when their butts are kicked to hell) start jesting "If you're that good, why don't you do some research and get a Nobel Prize." So where's their work? (Often after this comes the "Both are unsupported" shit.)

Sometimes I wonder if people like that know they're lying but figure that saving souls is worth the minor crime of lying. Or perhaps I just read a bit too much Dostoyevsky in university.

I've actually confronted a guy who had the guts to twist logic as well as quote the bible saying that since they are "showing righteous", they aren't lying. He seemed serious to me. I often think that after some point, fundies begin to apply double standards, admit it, and even bring out very, very, very ridiculous claims without shame.

[Surlethe]

I've actually confronted a guy who had the guts to twist logic as well as quote the bible saying that since they are "showing righteous", they aren't lying. He seemed serious to me. I often think that after some point, fundies begin to apply double standards, admit it, and even bring out very, very, very ridiculous claims without shame.

It's the fervent and sincere belief that they are right; and, of course, if they're right, they can't be wrong. I don't think we should underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion in this regard; I expect that crushing all thoughts of self-doubt for years on end will make someone honestly believe his double standards are true. Christianity actively discourages intellectual dissent (off the top of my head, the Act of Contrition in the Catholic Mass goes, "I have sinned ... in my thoughts, and in my words; in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do ..."); a fundamentalist, therefore, suppresses all intellectual dissention on his part which may be construed as sin.