Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[danielwoods]

Teleological argument.

 

Darwin didn't know a lot of things, He didn't know about Abiogenesis, genetics, or airplanes. It isn't as if Darwin is the last word on anything. His Theory of Evolution concerns is how life changed once it got here. Every test thrown against it so far has failed to falsify it. Here is a simple to do easy test to disprove Evolution. No fancy degrees, just a shovel, paper and pencil. That is what Darwin had. Now just dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your publication in The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science AKA Science.

 

The sun releases energy from combining Hydrogen atoms to form Helium. That is what ultimately powers all life on this planet. Abiogenesis is the process by which nonliving chemicals combined and recombined to form more complex chemicals and eventually what we recognize as life. I don't desire any prizes. My desire is to be a good husband, father, and Grandfather. Unfortunately for you Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak will share the $1.4 million Noble Prize in Medicine for their work in Abiogenesis.

 

The process by which nonliving chemicals combined and recombined to form more complex chemicals isn't ever observed or demonstrated and ultimately violates the 2nd law. Which is unfortunate for a group that claims to be based on observational evidence. 

[MortyS]

The process by which nonliving chemicals combined and recombined to form more complex chemicals isn't ever observed or demonstrated and ultimately violates the 2nd law. Which is unfortunate for a group that claims to be based on observational evidence. 

 

This statement is just way too incorrect to let stand.

 

Breaking it down.

 

Nonliving chemicals interact with each other all the time to form more complex chemicals. Two hydrogen atoms readily bond with and oxygen to form a water molecule. From the simple compounds more complex compounds readily form when exposed to a catalyst. Look we just invalidated your first point.

 

You also demonstrate a profound ignorance about the laws of thermodynamics. Increasing order in a system in no way violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics when the system is receiving energy from an outside source (not a closed system). The Earth is constantly bombarded with energy from the sun. This increase in energy can in turn be used to increase local order. Arguments that evolution violates thermodynamics are made by those who do not understand physics.

 

An amethyst, or other inorganic crystal invalidates both of your points. As it is both a compound formed of simpler chemicals, and a representation of an increase in order due to the addition of heat into a system.

[thesometimesaint]

The process by which nonliving chemicals combined and recombined to form more complex chemicals isn't ever observed or demonstrated and ultimately violates the 2nd law. Which is unfortunate for a group that claims to be based on observational evidence. 

 

Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak will share the $1.4 million Noble Prize in Medicine.  

Biologists may never know exactly which molecules came together to form the first living organisms, but HHMI investigator Jack W. Szostak, a geneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, is very close ...  In his laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Szostak and colleagues synthesized chains of nucleic acids that can latch onto other nucleic acid chains (including copies of themselves) and partially copy those chains. On the early Earth, reproducing chains of nucleic acids could have formed within vesicles composed of fatty acids, which could have been plentiful in certain places. This compartmentalization is critical, Szostak points out, because otherwise, highly efficient replicators will make copies of all the nucleic acid chains around them. If they are isolated inside a vesicle, however, they will make more copies of themselves and thereby increase in number.

After examining several possible mechanisms, "we worked out an idea that was relatively simple," he says. They found that putting nucleic acid chains inside a vesicle creates osmotic pressure inside the membrane. These highly pressurized vesicles are able to absorb fatty acids from less-pressurized vesicles and grow. If these growing cells divide randomly or at a certain size threshold, they reproduce faster than less rapidly growing cells. In this way, says Szostak, a highly efficient nucleic acid replicator could outcompete less efficient replicators.

The outcome is natural selection among membrane-encapsulated nucleic acid chains. "It's a nice simplification of the whole process," says Szostak. Different replicator-vesicle packages compete with each other to become more numerous, so Darwinian evolution can occur with relatively simple molecular systems. Once these simple cells start competing, Szostak believes, there is a "snowball effect. You start to get additional functions evolving, and that's going to lead to changes in the membrane composition. The whole system is going to be under pressure to get a lot more complicated pretty quickly."

www.hhmi.org/bulletin/dec2005/features/e...

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamic concerns a closed system. Our planet is not a closed system. We constantly receive energy from the sun.

Edited December 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

This statement is just way too incorrect to let stand.

 

Breaking it down.

 

Nonliving chemicals interact with each other all the time to form more complex chemicals. Two hydrogen atoms readily bond with and oxygen to form a water molecule. From the simple compounds more complex compounds readily form when exposed to a catalyst. Look we just invalidated your first point.

 

You also demonstrate a profound ignorance about the laws of thermodynamics. Increasing order in a system in no way violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics when the system is receiving energy from an outside source (not a closed system). The Earth is constantly bombarded with energy from the sun. This increase in energy can in turn be used to increase local order. Arguments that evolution violates thermodynamics are made by those who do not understand physics.

 

An amethyst, or other inorganic crystal invalidates both of your points. As it is both a compound formed of simpler chemicals, and a representation of an increase in order due to the addition of heat into a system.

 

The claim of believers in abiogensis isn't that more complex chemicals form naturally, but that ultimately life forms naturally from this unknown process with unknown mechanisms. A concept not only contrary to any observable evidence, but without a mechanism to overcome entropy (despite being an open system), the 2nd law prevails and entropy increases. Understand that I am specifically targeting abiogensis in this criticism. What mechanism in non-living matter self organizes itself to overcome entropy? Until that question is answered, the theory of abiogensis is simply a statement of blind faith. 

[thesometimesaint]

The claim of believers in abiogensis isn't that more complex chemicals form naturally, but that ultimately life forms naturally from this unknown process with unknown mechanisms. A concept not only contrary to any observable evidence, but without a mechanism to overcome entropy (despite being an open system), the 2nd law prevails and entropy increases. Understand that I am specifically targeting abiogensis in this criticism. What mechanism in non-living matter self organizes itself to overcome entropy? Until that question is answered, the theory of abiogensis is simply a statement of blind faith. 

 

I don't believe in abiogenesis. It is only the best explanation we have so far for how life came to be on this planet.

The process is known as abiogenesis. What we don't know, and may never fully know, is the exact sequences of chemical reactions that started the whole process.

The experiments of Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak is observed.

Entropy is not a factor in abiogenesis. We get all the energy we need from the sun.

[MortyS]

Daniel,

Your statement about the 2nd lawin regards to evolution/abiogenesis is a common trope from the fundamental/creationist crowd. It has traction with those not versed in thermodynamics and it agrees with their cognitive biases. Unfortunately this view is entirely and thoroughly, contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

The second law applies to closed systems, and is hinged upon the idea of locality. Ecoultion on Earth converts the influx of energy from the sun into an increase in order.

If I take a large, clear plastic bucket and fill it with 1 cf of fine sand, 1 cf of rice, and 1 cf of ping pong balls mixed to a fairly homogenous distribution of material, what happens when I then shake the container for 15 minutes?

Given the influx of enough external energy in the form of shaking will move the system from high entropy to increasingly ordered. The influx of energy, combined with gravity and the physical properties of the materials will act to sort the material. The ping pong balls will rise to the top, the sand will filter through to the bottom, and the rice will occupy the middle.

Did I violate thermodynamics? Evolution no more violates thermodynamics than this example. Information, a naturally occurring sorted system, can occur locally due to the influx of external energy. The same now applies to evolution.

Let's see if you can be taught......

[MortyS]

Not being able to edit combined with my phone's autocorrect and inherent restrictions in viewing the whole message results in interesting typos. Sorry.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel,

Your statement about the 2nd lawin regards to evolution/abiogenesis is a common trope from the fundamental/creationist crowd. It has traction with those not versed in thermodynamics and it agrees with their cognitive biases. Unfortunately this view is entirely and thoroughly, contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

The second law applies to closed systems, and is hinged upon the idea of locality. Ecoultion on Earth converts the influx of energy from the sun into an increase in order.

If I take a large, clear plastic bucket and fill it with 1 cf of fine sand, 1 cf of rice, and 1 cf of ping pong balls mixed to a fairly homogenous distribution of material, what happens when I then shake the container for 15 minutes?

Given the influx of enough external energy in the form of shaking will move the system from high entropy to increasingly ordered. The influx of energy, combined with gravity and the physical properties of the materials will act to sort the material. The ping pong balls will rise to the top, the sand will filter through to the bottom, and the rice will occupy the middle.

Did I violate thermodynamics? Evolution no more violates thermodynamics than this example. Information, a naturally occurring sorted system, can occur locally due to the influx of external energy. The same now applies to evolution.

Let's see if you can be taught......

Agreed.

 

To be accurate abiogenesis while it is somewhat related to evolution they are really about two different things.

[MortyS]

Agreed. But in regards to thermodynamics in regards to our non closed system (the Earth) both abiogenesis and evolution are well within the laws of physics.

Promoting the contrary, merely reveals a lack of comprehension of the laws of physics.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed. But in regards to thermodynamics in regards to our non closed system (the Earth) both abiogenesis and evolution are well within the laws of physics.

Promoting the contrary, merely reveals a lack of comprehension of the laws of physics.

 

Agreed.

[ERayR]

This statement is just way too incorrect to let stand.

 

Breaking it down.

 

Nonliving chemicals interact with each other all the time to form more complex chemicals. Two hydrogen atoms readily bond with and oxygen to form a water molecule. From the simple compounds more complex compounds readily form when exposed to a catalyst. Look we just invalidated your first point.

 

 

And water is a living substance?  Not questioning that nonliving substances can combine into more complex substances but am questioning rather those complex combinations are living.

[danielwoods]

I don't believe in abiogenesis. It is only the best explanation we have so far for how life came to be on this planet.

False. It's the best explanation if God is left out of the equation. So, the best atheistic guess (which represents their faith commitment). Yes.

The process is known as abiogenesis. What we don't know, and may never fully know, is the exact sequences of chemical reactions that started the whole process.

The experiments of Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak is observed.

Entropy is not a factor in abiogenesis. We get all the energy we need from the sun.

Until the mechanism that overcomes entropy, is discovered, it's still in play. Life still doesn't just appear from non-living things, even when scientists pat themselves on their collective backs and give themselves awards for observing themselves working on a problem.

[ERayR]

I don't believe in abiogenesis. It is only the best explanation we have so far for how life came to be on this planet.

The process is known as abiogenesis. What we don't know, and may never fully know, is the exact sequences of chemical reactions that started the whole process.

The experiments of Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak is observed.

Entropy is not a factor in abiogenesis. We get all the energy we need from the sun.

 

What you have just described is faith which places the assumptions you accept on faith directly in the middle of being a religion.  Look I don't care what you believe just quit blowing smoke about science (in this area) being better than a religious belief.

[MortyS]

Daniel,

Again entropy is overcome with the influx of outside energy. You are kissaplying science. There is nothing within the laws of physics that precludes abiogenesis or evolution.

Find another argument, that one is dead.

[MortyS]

*Misapplying... How did I get kiss?

[ERayR]

Daniel,

Again entropy is overcome with the influx of outside energy. You are kissaplying science. There is nothing within the laws of physics that precludes abiogenesis or evolution.

Find another argument, that one is dead.

 

Your beliefs are perfectly acceptable but pleas read my post # 388.

[danielwoods]

Daniel,

Your statement about the 2nd lawin regards to evolution/abiogenesis is a common trope from the fundamental/creationist crowd. It has traction with those not versed in thermodynamics and it agrees with their cognitive biases. Unfortunately this view is entirely and thoroughly, contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

The second law applies to closed systems, and is hinged upon the idea of locality. Ecoultion on Earth converts the influx of energy from the sun into an increase in order.

If I take a large, clear plastic bucket and fill it with 1 cf of fine sand, 1 cf of rice, and 1 cf of ping pong balls mixed to a fairly homogenous distribution of material, what happens when I then shake the container for 15 minutes?

Given the influx of enough external energy in the form of shaking will move the system from high entropy to increasingly ordered. The influx of energy, combined with gravity and the physical properties of the materials will act to sort the material. The ping pong balls will rise to the top, the sand will filter through to the bottom, and the rice will occupy the middle.

Did I violate thermodynamics? Evolution no more violates thermodynamics than this example. Information, a naturally occurring sorted system, can occur locally due to the influx of external energy. The same now applies to evolution.

Let's see if you can be taught......

I have acknowledged that the Earth isn't a closed system, that it does receive energy from the sun. This point is interesting, because technically, the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The energy from the sun, however, is irrelevant to decreasing entropy if there's no mechanism to point to whereby that heat energy (and those pesky damaging ultraviolet rays) can be used to produce life.

It's similar to saying I've got a bucket of particles, if I add heat and shake it up a bit, and add just the right amount of other particles, I get silicone and aluminum which we all know is the basis for the modern computer. Therefore, the conclusion of abiogensis believers is that computers form naturally with just the right particles with just the right ingredients mixed together. Which seems promising at first, but in reality is just wishful thinking, because just as life doesn't derive itself from the particles, neither is the programing that make computers work derived from the silicone and aluminum that make up a computer.

So, while strictly speaking thermodynamics isn't violated (it's not a closed system), the heat added doesn't really aid in it's becoming life, no more than adding heat to a computer would make it run a program. And the more we learn about DNA and it's complexity, the reality is that we're talking about a Crey Supercomputer the just appearing on the scene in the Cambrian era all ready to go. And to top it off, supposedly millions of years later, life as we know it hasn't changed, we still use the same exact DNA principles as they did then when it first appeared.

 

[thesometimesaint]

False. It's the best explanation if God is left out of the equation. So, the best atheistic guess (which represents their faith commitment). Yes.

Until the mechanism that overcomes entropy, is discovered, it's still in play. Life still doesn't just appear from non-living things, even when scientists pat themselves on their collective backs and give themselves awards for observing themselves working on a problem.

 

Science by definition can not posit any God or God like force and still be science. Science is agnostic on the question of God. Individual scientists are free to believe whatever they want. Some of the greatest scientists this world has ever seen have been Theists.

 

How many time do you have to be told? Entropy is about energy transfer in a closed systems. This earth is not a closed system. We get all the energy we need from our sun.

 

That is a teleological fallacy.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Your beliefs are perfectly acceptable but pleas read my post # 388.

 

and please see 8:45

 

Edited December 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

I have acknowledged that the Earth isn't a closed system, that it does receive energy from the sun. This point is interesting, because technically, the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The energy from the sun, however, is irrelevant to decreasing entropy if there's no mechanism to point to whereby that heat energy (and those pesky damaging ultraviolet rays) can be used to produce life.

It's similar to saying I've got a bucket of particles, if I add heat and shake it up a bit, and add just the right amount of other particles, I get silicone and aluminum which we all know is the basis for the modern computer. Therefore, the conclusion of abiogensis believers is that computers form naturally with just the right particles with just the right ingredients mixed together. Which seems promising at first, but in reality is just wishful thinking, because just as life doesn't derive itself from the particles, neither is the programing that make computers work derived from the silicone and aluminum that make up a computer.

So, while strictly speaking thermodynamics isn't violated (it's not a closed system), the heat added doesn't really aid in it's becoming life, no more than adding heat to a computer would make it run a program. And the more we learn about DNA and it's complexity, the reality is that we're talking about a Crey Supercomputer the just appearing on the scene in the Cambrian era all ready to go. And to top it off, supposedly millions of years later, life as we know it hasn't changed, we still use the same exact DNA principles as they did then when it first appeared.

 

 

Thank you for acknowledging entropy is only about closed systems.

Heat is what drives abiogenesis, and all of modern biology for that matter.

Phospholipids protect against UV light.

 

That is a teleological argument. Further DNA does change at known rates.

SEE http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26881/

 

Heat provides the power that does drive abiogenesis and all modern biology for that matter.

What is it about creationists that they can't understand big numbers?

SEE

[MortyS]

Nature is full of examples of order derived from energy and the interaction of forces with the properties of materials; snow flakes, hurricanes, planets, crystals, annealing, etc. That higher order of complexity can result from natural processes does not violate any laws of the universe as long as it occurs within a subset of a larger system. The universe is at a lower energy state than it used to be, and there are complex systems. This is not a problem.

 

 

The order from the bucket experiment demonstrates this potential. That life can arise does not violate thermodynamics. That we don't know the exact conditions does not make it an impossibility. The difference between the bucket and evolution is just scale of time. A scientist would say that natural computers have developed and then said natural computers made microchips.

 

Insisting this violates some fundamental law of physics is just a manifestation if ignorance about the law. If there is energy available in a system it can as a function of natural interaction, be converted into information.

[pogi]

What is it about creationists that they can't understand big numbers?

 

Too busy trying to contemplate eternity.

 

Heat is what drives abiogenesis

 

What is it about evolutionsist that they make up theories about theories and call it fact?  If we don't know what abiogenesis is or how it works, how could a person make such a claim?

[ERayR]

Nature is full of examples of order derived from energy and the interaction of forces with the properties of materials; snow flakes, hurricanes, planets, crystals, annealing, etc. That higher order of complexity can result from natural processes does not violate any laws of the universe as long as it occurs within a subset of a larger system. The universe is at a lower energy state than it used to be, and there are complex systems. This is not a problem.

 

 

The order from the bucket experiment demonstrates this potential. That life can arise does not violate thermodynamics. That we don't know the exact conditions does not make it an impossibility. The difference between the bucket and evolution is just scale of time. A scientist would say that natural computers have developed and then said natural computers made microchips.

 

Insisting this violates some fundamental law of physics is just a manifestation if ignorance about the law. If there is energy available in a system it can as a function of natural interaction, be converted into information.

 

But it does put it directly in the realm of faith (religion). 

[danielwoods]

Science by definition can not posit any God or God like force and still be science. Science is agnostic on the question of God. Individual scientists are free to believe whatever they want. Some of the greatest scientists this world has ever seen have been Theists.

For a believer, science is a study of what God has made. The belief that the "laws" of physics are both constant and universal, is a faith that the God that made them that way, because they are derived from his nature. Studying what God made, using the principles of observation and experimentation.

For an atheist, the best guess that they have are "just so" stories, like abiogensis, dark matter, the Ort Cloud, vestigial organs, junk DNA and so on. They have no reason to think that the "laws" of physics are constant and universal, they simply borrow that idea from scientists in the distant past who were believers in God, without acknowledging it or remembering why, or wanting to know why.

So, while I agree with you that science itself is agnostic on the question of God (which is theology), because it is based on observation and experimentation. Which is what discredits these huge extrapolations that they make.

[MortyS]

Not in the realm of religion, but in the realm of the currently unknown.

The difference? Science has a methodology by which a hypothesis is tested. When a hypothesis is proven by repeatable,demonstrable, non subjective experimentation it becomes a theory. I imagine that eventually scientists will be able to synthesize life in laboratory conditions to a degree where the results are not debatable...

Religion deals with the undemonstrable and subjective. It's hypothesis are non falsifiable.