Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?

[FlatAssembler]

I think you are giving way too much credibility to the Argument from Degrees. It's a word salad. Trying to respond to it makes as much sense as trying to contradict that word-salad about optics that Flat-Earthers use to explain the fact that ships appear to sink as they go over the horizon.

I don't agree with you that the argument is "word salad." To me, word salad is just ungrammatical nonsense, like a dadaist poem. 

It seems to me that the argument is valid, but it may not be sound. That is, if we accept the premises as true for the sake of argument, then the logical progression works. I don't know if the premises are in fact true, though, so the conclusion may well be unsound. 

What is your argument to show that the Argument from Degrees is unsound?

OK, what are the premises of the Argument from Degrees? I honestly think they essentially boil down to "F*ck thermodynamics!", but I am not sure as it's not written clearly.

What criterion do you use for what arguments should be taken into account? Which arguments should you put an effort into to understand them? Thomas Aquinas was using philosophical arguments because he realized he didn't have evidence. Perhaps if somebody admits he has no evidence (by using philosophical arguments instead of evidence), you should not put effort into understanding him. What do you think? Though, admittedly, I don't have much evidence in my latest paper about the names of places in Croatia either, what I have there is mainly a reinterpretation of existing evidence. Which is still way better than merely having philosophical arguments.