danielwoods Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 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. As I said, if you could come up with a mechanism that demonstrates this, you'd win a big prize. Many atheists would be so happy. I honestly don't care how God did it, but until then science knows only one source for life, that is other life. 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? Note, I stated that the same "DNA principles" are used today, as it was from the very start. Which indicates that it didn't derive itself from inorganic matter by itself. A program is evidence of a programer.
MortyS Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 An example of the difference:Science- Objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/ss when in free fall on Earth.Religion- There is a pink invisible immaterial dragon living in my garage.
danielwoods Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 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. It can if there is a mechanism to convert that energy into information. Unfortunately that mechanism must have warp drive capabilities because it has disappeared.
MortyS Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 As I said, if you could come up with a mechanism that demonstrates this, you'd win a big prize. Many atheists would be so happy. I honestly don't care how God did it, but until then science knows only one source for life, that is other life. Note, I stated that the same "DNA principles" are used today, as it was from the very start. Which indicates that it didn't derive itself from inorganic matter by itself. A program is evidence of a programer.I gave an example of a sort algorithm entirely driven by the fundamental nature of the universe. Where is the evidence for a programmer?
MortyS Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 It can if there is a mechanism to convert that energy into information. Unfortunately that mechanism must have warp drive capabilities because it has disappeared.Daniel, maybe you can not be taught...The example of the bucket is a demonstration of energy creating information. No warp drive involved. Crystal formation another, as annealing a third.You are in a hole of your own ignorance, drop the shovel, stop digging.
danielwoods Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 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.Unfortunately, abiogensis is currently fitting under your classification as religion. It's not demonstrable and is subjective. You imagine that scientists will create life, and you think that will demonstrate that it occurred naturally? What actually happens, is it does the opposite. It continues to demonstrate that it takes intelligence to create life.
danielwoods Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 I gave an example of a sort algorithm entirely driven by the fundamental nature of the universe. Where is the evidence for a programmer? Where there is a simple program (your simple algorithm), the programer appears invisible. DNA is similar to a language were each word is 30 characters long, and each word and sentence is folded in a 3 dimensional shape. This language is far more complex than anything we could imagine, and it simply appeared without any precursors. In this case, the evidence is shouting - PROGRAMMER!
danielwoods Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Daniel, maybe you can not be taught...The example of the bucket is a demonstration of energy creating information. No warp drive involved. Crystal formation another, as annealing a third.You are in a hole of your own ignorance, drop the shovel, stop digging. It's a common fallacy to think that simple "energy created" information can explain the highly complex information found only in life forms, simply by adding more time or energy. The point is that the extrapolation is unfounded, and based solely on faith. I'd love to see some evidence for this mechanism that you believe can create all of life. You know… observable evidence, the kind that you say the science is based on?
MortyS Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 You ever study genetic algorithms or stimulated annealing. A programmer per se is not necessary to increase the complexity of an organism. Fitness drives towards a solution locally optimized and adapted to its niche. It is not the global optimum, but an solution ever driven to become better adapted. One can not understand evolution without understanding the role of fitness in driving adaptation.
MortyS Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Here is the difference. I claim not to know, but have demonstrated that the laws of physics do not preclude the possibility.You habe misrepresented the laws of physics, and then asserted without a shred of evidence that god did it.I'll stick with I don't know.....
ERayR Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 You habe misrepresented the laws of physics, and then asserted without a shred of evidence that god did it.I'll stick with I don't know..... Me > God did do it. I don't know how but he did. You> It happened by chance mixing of non-living matter. I don't know how but it happened. Point out the difference. Both are expressed by faith. One a faith in God. The other a faith in chance happening. Which is religion? They are both dependent on faith.
MortyS Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 I didn't say it definitely happened in any given way. I just said that the laws of physics do not preclude abiogenesis nor evolution.Evolution is well demonstrated, but the initial origin of life? I don't know. I readily admit this. Did admit this upstream.
ERayR Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 I didn't say it definitely happened in any given way. I just said that the laws of physics do not preclude abiogenesis nor evolution.Evolution is well demonstrated, but the initial origin of life? I don't know. I readily admit this. Did admit this upstream. Micro-evolution is well demonstrated. Macro-evolution not so much. There is much extrapolation that is untestable and unprovable there.
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 Micro-evolution is well demonstrated. Macro-evolution not so much. There is much extrapolation that is untestable and unprovable there. Where is the peer-reviewed evidence? Can you cite the scientific literature? Just because fundamentalists say that doesn't mean it is true
thesometimesaint Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) As I said, if you could come up with a mechanism that demonstrates this, you'd win a big prize. Many atheists would be so happy. I honestly don't care how God did it, but until then science knows only one source for life, that is other life. Note, I stated that the same "DNA principles" are used today, as it was from the very start. Which indicates that it didn't derive itself from inorganic matter by itself. A program is evidence of a programer. No matter how many times you say it it makes no difference to the facts. The mechanism is abiogenesis. It has been demonstrated in the lab. Three scientists have already received the Nobel Prize in medicine for their work on abiogenesis.SEE What a person beliefs about God are is irrelevant to facts. We don't throw out the fact of gravity just because you gained a little weight over Thanksgiving dinner. That you don't care is irrelevant. The source of life is the complex chemical reaction that allows for life to exist. Take away that chemistry and life will not exist. Your beliefs about God are irrelevant to science. Just as my beliefs about God are irrelevant to science. What exactly what are those "DNA principles" that were used before complex life first appeared on this planet? Yes; this is a CFR. You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking.about Inorganic just means without carbon.SEE http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inorganic+chemistry1. (Chemistry) the branch of chemistry concerned with the elements and all their compounds except those containing carbon. Some simple carbon compounds, such as oxides, carbonates, etc, are treated as inorganicSome examples are Carbon Dioxide, Sodium Bicarbonate. That is the classic teleological argument.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument Edited December 6, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in the lab. People, please keep your facts separated from fiction.
thesometimesaint Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in the lab. People, please keep your facts separated from fiction. While there is plenty more to learn. We do have a pretty good understanding of how it works.SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VINOtsnSTFISEE http://www.reddit.com/r/abiogenesis/comments/11h7u2/one_step_closer_to_abiogenesis_in_the_lab/
thesometimesaint Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 Me > God did do it. I don't know how but he did. You> It happened by chance mixing of non-living matter. I don't know how but it happened. Point out the difference. Both are expressed by faith. One a faith in God. The other a faith in chance happening. Which is religion? They are both dependent on faith. It is not chance that drives abiogenesis and evolution. It is the simple fact that those that reproduce win.
ERayR Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 It is not chance that drives abiogenesis and evolution. It is the simple fact that those that reproduce win. abiogenesis is how it started. Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds Evolution is the simple fact that those that reproduce win.
thesometimesaint Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 abiogenesis is how it started. Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds Evolution is the simple fact that those that reproduce win. Correct but incomplete. Without reproduction(mechanical or chemical) neither abiogenesis or evolution can occur.
Rob Osborn Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 While there is plenty more to learn. We do have a pretty good understanding of how it works.SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VINOtsnSTFISEE http://www.reddit.com/r/abiogenesis/comments/11h7u2/one_step_closer_to_abiogenesis_in_the_lab/Nothing novel. Where is it shown that they have actually witnessed new intelligent processes? They are so extremely far away from even being able to witness one simple intelligent process. No, instead, they have to inject intelligwnce into it to get intelligence out of it. All they are doing is showing that intelligent processes happen because of the intelligent creators in the lab manipulating and adding intelligent materials to it. 1
mnn727 Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 How did this thread go from Noah's "flood' to evolution?
Rob Osborn Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 How did this thread go from Noah's "flood' to evolution?They are related. If the global flood was real, evolution is bogus. If evolution is real, the bibles a joke.
MortyS Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 That is an interesting statement, given that there is ample geological evidence for evolution, and 0 for a global flood in the 10K years.
Rob Osborn Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Its so easy to follow after mans learning...There also isnt any evidence for the Book of Mormon according to that same science institution...Perhaps atheism is true after all...
Recommended Posts