If you want to bring up that old PRATT I suggest you search the board for the MANY times it has been discussed and laughed over.
The topic of this thread is:
"The question is, what predictive qualities of either ID or Biblical Creationism stand out as examples of prediction in the same manner as Mendeleev's Periodic Table allowed predictions of the characteristics of both known and yet to be discovered elements?"
1. PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times = a common phrase used by posters of online debating forums, and refers specifically to any argument that has, as the name suggests, been refuted time and time again. This is particularly frequent in 'Creation vs Evolution' forums. (Definition from Wiki.)
2. Many of us here have been arguing with creos for years.
3. Any quote you swipe off some creo site (AIG, ICR, etc.) has been beaten to DEATH.
4. Any newbie that swoops in on a dead-for-3-months thread and drops a one line PRATT is more than likely a hit and run creo. IOW, maybe one, maybe two posts and we never hear from them again.
5. Unlike other sites, EvC has a set of rules (see link above) and we try our best to stick to 'em. So. The Second Law of Thermodynamics ... hell, any of the 3 laws ... is OT in this thread unless you can manage to tie it/them to the OP.
Well you have to remember that many of us are NOT new to this. The 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, it has been discussed here at EvC a brazillion times which is why it is considered a PRATT (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) and it is also off topic for this thread.
If someone has been telling you that it is an issue they are either ignorant of what the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics says or if it was from someone who was supposedly not ignorant, say a teacher or website, then they were lying to you.
For answers begin by reading the following threads:
If you would actually like to support Creationism or ID or any model other than the current models, it is necessary to actually present a model that supports your position and not just try to attack another.
If for example, you really could find something that absolutely destroyed the current TOE, all that would mean is the the current model must needs to be reexamined to find explanations for the disparity. It adds no weight or support to any other model.
To support Creationism or IDism you need to present testable models that at the very minimum, explain what is seen better than the current models.