Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Apart from the point I made above, Nature exists, therefore, any explanation is bound to be found within Nature - there's no need for a supernatural explanation; not to mention that we have to rule out natural explanations before we looked for non-natural ones.

again Dragan, I have nothing else to add, if your position is that we can not infer supernatural design, until we exclude all naturalistic possibilities then I can not meet your unrealistic burden.

it is impossible to falsify all possible natural explanations, there is a potentially infinite number of possible natural explanations for everything.

ironically only God (someone with absolute knowledge) can falsify all natural explanations. (do you see a paradox here?)

you are raising the bar unrealistically too high. literally nothing will convince you that a supernatural designer exists, no matter what the evidence is, there will always be possible naturalistic explanations.

As I said in the same post:

On the contrary.

We know Nature exists - we don't know anything outside of Nature.

The only probable explanations are a natural one (chemistry) or aliens (design).

Any evidence we have will be natural - not supernatural, therefore, there's no possibility of inferring a supernatural design(er) from the evidence.

You have no - and still cannot provide any - evidence for a supernatural designer other than assertions.

[...]

The examples I've given show that one can infer design within reason - ie, human or alien.

A supernatural explanation is simply unwarranted.

[...]

The key problem for anyone defending a deity is defining the properties of said deity - because, to date, no-one in the course of human history has managed to give a coherent definition of one.

That's why we don't consider supernatural entities as possible.

And, since you're refusing to defend a deity's existence - despite saying you would - you can't claim that one exists and expect anyone to accept your baseless assertion.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:16 am
Steelmage99Posts: 203Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
ironically only God (someone with absolute knowledge) can falsify all natural explanations.


You are working off of the completely unjustified assumptions that;

1. Your god exists and

2. He has absolute knowledge.

Please, provide evidence for your assertions.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:30 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3478Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Oh, look at that. Dandan/Leroy ignored the majority of my last post, asked questions that were already answered, and mindlessly responded to a bunch of people rapidly. Classic dandan/leroy.

leroy wrote:1 the fact that at least some MF scenarios have been falsified is just a bonus, I don't reject abiogenesis on that basis, I reject natural abiogenesis on the basis that it has fundamental problems (entropy problems for example) originally we get in to MF scenarios because HWN seems to prefer falsified naturalistic hypothesis rather than design (that has not been falsified)


Why must you lie?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:A baseless assertion is equal to a falsified explanation. Neither of them have explanatory scope.


Honestly, what is the point of lying on a written forum? Look how easy it is to expose your lie. Beyond that, I obviously do not support the falsified metabolism first scenarios.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Which is not a problem for nature, as your own source demonstrated.



the source is wrong, the only thing that the source had correct is the definition of entropy.
I already explained why the source is wrong


You did no such thing. You moved the goal posts by making a claim beyond entropy, and when I asked you to back it up, you ignored my request. Again, why you feel the need to lie on a written forum is beyond me; with just one click your lies are exposed.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You do realize that wine can form naturally, right? How do you think we discovered it? Beyond that, we do not have a complete understanding of how life started naturally. No one ever claimed we did, however we do have great hypotheses that are based on evidence. Your ignorance is not an argument.


1 when I talk about water turning in to wine, I am talking about an event and all the stuff described in the video that you quoted and that you admitted that it would be evidence for a supernatural entity,


Yes. That being someone/something demonstrating magic. Still waiting for any evidence of magic. You said you would defend JesusDidIt after all, thus what are you waiting for?

leroy wrote:2 of all those grate hypothesis can you name 1 that is better than design?


I already have several times including in the post you are quoting from. Perhaps if you started reading for comprehension, and stopped mindlessly responding in rapid action, you would already know this and I would not have to keep linking you to my old posts. Beyond that, stop pretending that your baseless assertion is on equal ground to anything scientists are actually researching.

leroy wrote:3 the problem with abiogenesis is not incomplete knowledge nor small gaps as you seem to believe. there are fundamental problems with natural abiogenesis, just like there are fundamental problems with the idea that water can turn in to wine naturally. I mentioned entropy as an example of a fundamental problem and so far you haven't provided a solution to the problem, nor an explanation for why this is just a minor problem and not a mayor and fundamental problem.


Yes I did show how entropy in this context is not an insurmountable problem using your own source. You later demonstrated that you actually did not understand entropy in this context by moving the goal posts and then also later agreed that it was not an insurmountable problem. What is the point of bringing it up again as if it were an insurmountable problem?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:03 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

A cosmic hippo shat out the universe.

That's better than the design claim.

Why?

1) Design is not evident in the universe - quite the contrary: so if the universe was designed, the designer went far out of their way to make it appear absent of design.

2) Hippos unequivocally exist.


The reason why this claim is better is than the design claim is that, while it wholly relies on asserting bullshit exactly as the design contention, it at least has no need to deny science to pretend it has worth.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:57 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:In order to argue for a supernatural creator-entity, you'll have to do the following:

1) Demonstrate that any supernatural creator-entity (individual or group) can exist;

Well I don't agree, these hexagonal columns would indicate design, even if you don't demonstrate a priori that aliens exist.

I missed this earlier - or, at least, the implications of this assertion.

They wouldn't.

For the simple reason that such columns can form due to chemistry - a perfect example of which are hexagonal basalt columns of The Giant's Causeway:in Antrim, Northern Ireland.

Image

Image

So much for your "designer" assertion.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:50 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Hexagonal is explicitly what nature does.

Someone asserting design with respect to hexagonal structures; worse, actually denying their natural provenance - is completely fucking clueless about nature. What a surprise - it's LEROY! :lol:

Kiddie level - i.e. for LEROY:

"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:57 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Hexagons are ubiquitous in nature. Found everywhere and at all scales, from the atomic-scale grids of crystals or oganic molecules (aromatic rings), to colossal weather patterns on gas-giant planets.

For latter, just google "hexagonal storm saturn":
Image
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:13 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Amusingly, the very topic LEROY's pretending he understands, and laughably attempts to use to batter away at science.... yes, it's thermodynamics in action. The very thing he's waving his willy about is the explanation for why nature loves hexagons.

You couldn't make up this level of self-defeating stupid.

You want directionality to the universe? You want a Creator? Look no further: the universe naturally tends towards the path of least resistance. Quite the contrary to what you'd expect with the ontology of the alleged designer.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:14 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Oh yeah, I didn't even think of that. You're absolutely right, and there's a rather large section devoted to bernard's cells (a physical phenomenon that results from thermodynamics) in the book Into the Cool - Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life.

Even more hilarious and ironic, life itself is thought to be a consequence of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
http://www.eoht.info/page/B%C3%A9nard+cells

Image

Gradient-dissipation theory
In the early 1990s, American ecologists Eric Schneider and James Kay built on early data from silicon oil Bénard cells experiments to postulate an entropy production, exergy consumption theory of biological order formation in the heat gradient from the sun. Specifically, using a nonequilibrium extension of the second law, of the William Thomson / Ilya Prigogine energy dissipation variety, to graphical calculations of theirs done on heat flow through silicon oil in turbulent flow regime, they argue that spontaneous organizations appear in the fluid, which act to degrade the heat flow gradient across a fluid layer. They then extend this postulate to be a pervading regulatory behavior in the whole of the biosphere.

In particular, using the 1957 experimental data from the PhD dissertation of German researcher P. L. Silveston, in 1994, Schneider and Kay start with the generalized Prigoginean thermodynamics perspective that when a system is removed far from equilibrium by subjecting it to a stress, it will often undergo a transition from a spatially uniform state to a patterned state of spatial variation, but add to it that both “entropy production and exergy destruction occur” during the heat transfer process across the fluid layer, and that the “emergence of the ordered structures (Bénard cells)”, at a Rayleigh number (a dimensionless number for a fluid associated with the transition of heat transfer from the form of conduction to convection) of about 1760, results in such a manner to act to dissipate more energy. [5] In other words, the ordered structures emerge to act more effective energy dissipaters, consuming energy in the form of increased entropy production and decrease exergy (available work) consumption.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:59 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:Oh yeah, I didn't even think of that. You're absolutely right, and there's a rather large section devoted to bernard's cells (a physical phenomenon that results from thermodynamics) in the book Into the Cool - Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life.


Ooh book... strangely, when I searched for it on Google, the link was already highlighted meaning I've clicked it before... but I don't recall this book. Order placed! Cheers for the tip.


Rumraket wrote:Even more hilarious and ironic, life itself is thought to be a consequence of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
http://www.eoht.info/page/B%C3%A9nard+cells


Yup - before I stopped ignoring the tossrag in this thread, I mentioned this to him several times, but as usual, the tossrag ignores anything that doesn't conform to the contents of his tossrag.



Rumraket wrote:Image

Gradient-dissipation theory
In the early 1990s, American ecologists Eric Schneider and James Kay built on early data from silicon oil Bénard cells experiments to postulate an entropy production, exergy consumption theory of biological order formation in the heat gradient from the sun. Specifically, using a nonequilibrium extension of the second law, of the William Thomson / Ilya Prigogine energy dissipation variety, to graphical calculations of theirs done on heat flow through silicon oil in turbulent flow regime, they argue that spontaneous organizations appear in the fluid, which act to degrade the heat flow gradient across a fluid layer. They then extend this postulate to be a pervading regulatory behavior in the whole of the biosphere.

In particular, using the 1957 experimental data from the PhD dissertation of German researcher P. L. Silveston, in 1994, Schneider and Kay start with the generalized Prigoginean thermodynamics perspective that when a system is removed far from equilibrium by subjecting it to a stress, it will often undergo a transition from a spatially uniform state to a patterned state of spatial variation, but add to it that both “entropy production and exergy destruction occur” during the heat transfer process across the fluid layer, and that the “emergence of the ordered structures (Bénard cells)”, at a Rayleigh number (a dimensionless number for a fluid associated with the transition of heat transfer from the form of conduction to convection) of about 1760, results in such a manner to act to dissipate more energy. [5] In other words, the ordered structures emerge to act more effective energy dissipaters, consuming energy in the form of increased entropy production and decrease exergy (available work) consumption.


Spontaneous reactions - what LEROY's ignorant of, and therefore puts a magical man as the instigator of the reaction.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:45 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:Hexagonal is explicitly what nature does.

Someone asserting design with respect to hexagonal structures; worse, actually denying their natural provenance - is completely fucking clueless about nature. What a surprise - it's LEROY! :lol:

Kiddie level - i.e. for LEROY:



I am talking about Iron towers with hexagonal patterns, not just any hexagonal pattern,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:32 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

So in conclusion.

my case against natural abiogenesis


1 We all agree that no one has ever seen life coming from none life, and we all agree that no one has ever seen water turning in to wine

2 we all agree that Life coming from none life, implies low entropy coming from high entropy, and we all agree that water turning in to wine also implies low entropy coming from high entropy.

3 we all agree that there is no known mechanism that would organice organic molecules in the required order and patter required to create life, we all agree that there is no known natural mechanism that would organice molecules in the environment, in the order and patter required to do wine.

4 Based on 1,2,3 we all agree that "almost certainly " nature cant turn water in to wine

5 you are making an arbitrary exception with life, this exception has not been justified,


my case for design

A we all agree that the existence of a designer capable of creating life (ether natural or supernatural ) is at least possible

B a designer would solve the entropy problems, a designer can create low entropy form high entropy,

C there are many other entropy, fine tuning and chicken and egg problems that a designer would also solve, this includes both problems related and unrelated problems to the origin of life

You haven't disagreed with B and C ether, so unless you clarify I will assume that you also agree with them.

so under the basis of 1,2,3,4, 5 a,b and c I am affirming that design is a better explanation for abiogenesis than nature.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:09 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 894Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Visaki wrote:Then I'll ask you the same I asked Leroy; What attributes commonly defined to be "life" goes your God posses?


thenexttodie wrote:Consider yourself and then consider a house plant. Think of every characteristic of "life" you share with this plant and then subtract them from yourself, one by one.

Visaki wrote: Ok, that's not really an answer but an attempt at a red herring. I can work with that though. So you agree with Leroy that your God is not alive then. Nice to know.


I don't agree with your reasoning. If there is a God and he says He is living, I don't see how it would be meaningful for you to argue that God is not alive because He is not like a houseplant.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:17 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1215Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:C there are many other entropy, fine tuning and chicken and egg problems that a designer would also solve, this includes both problems related and unrelated problems to the origin of life


Oh yeah? Let's start with this one. Who created the designer?

My bet is on the chicken.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:07 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

thenexttodie wrote:I don't agree with your reasoning. If there is a God and he says He is living, I don't see how it would be meaningful for you to argue that God is not alive because He is not like a houseplant.


It's your houseplant, and your reasoning which appealed to it as a barometer for judging the characteristic 'life'.

Incidentally, you've offered no arguments here at all. This sentence above, for example, is circular reasoning.

So how about the universal characteristics of life - are you going to contend that God possesses those? Or is this going to be another case of divine special pleading?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:58 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3478Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:So in conclusion.


As expected, dandan/leroy runs away from another thread. If he is not doing this, he would be able to address my last post instead of repeating debunked premises. However, was anyone expecting anything else?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:38 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:So in conclusion.


As expected, dandan/leroy runs away from another thread. If he is not doing this, he would be able to address my last post instead of repeating debunked premises. However, was anyone expecting anything else?



Let me guess... his conclusion is a repetition of all the assertions he's made which have been spanked back to the Bronze Age where they originate?

How very LEROY.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:47 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:So in conclusion.

my case against natural abiogenesis


1 We all agree that no one has ever seen life coming from none life, and we all agree that no one has ever seen water turning in to wine

Sure.

2 we all agree that Life coming from none life, implies low entropy coming from high entropy, and we all agree that water turning in to wine also implies low entropy coming from high entropy.

Uhm yes, but the entropy is irrelevant. The entropy question is not why we think nature doesn't generally turn water into wine.

Reductions in entropy just requires energy. So energy is entirely the wrong measure to invoke to say nature can't make something happen. Fire and heat creates enormous reductions in localized entropy, by the conversion of useable energy into less usable forms.

You know that black soot-like thing on burned toast (or basically any burned organic material)? That black stuff is made of some of the most complex organic molecules in existence. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. All it took was heat to make them. Coals, soot, tar, kerogens, asphalt, bitumen and so on.

The problem isn't the complexity. Or the low entropy. The problem is how do you get the right kind of complexity? What combination of circumstances produces the right kind of complexity and organization?

3 we all agree that there is no known mechanism that would organice organic molecules in the required order and patter required to create life, we all agree that there is no known natural mechanism that would organice molecules in the environment, in the order and patter required to do wine.

I don't agree. All we know about life tells us it is a natural phenomenon, and intelligent designers have evolved through entirely natural means by mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

It is entirely possible that natural intelligent designers can use advanced technology to exploit nuclear fusion, radioactive decay and a host of organic chemistry to make wine from water. It would be extremely difficult and laborious, but it is at least technically possible.

In an ironic way, nature HAS produced wine from water. Or at least, from the atomic constituents of water. The hydrogen and oxygen in water have been turned into carbon, nitrogen and so on through nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. And life has originated and evolved so that eventually grapes came to exist, and human beings that could ferment fruits and make alcohols and make wine from those grapes.

It might be an "artifical" way to make wine, but it isn't an "unnatural" or "supernatural" one.

4 Based on 1,2,3 we all agree that "almost certainly " nature cant turn water in to wine

On the contrary, I'm almost certain nature has turned water into wine. It just took at least 6 billion years. And it is highly implausible that Jesus carried around an advanced 21st or 22nd century nuclear fusion and chemistry laboratory, so I very much doubt he produced wine from water back in the iron/bronze-age.

5 you are making an arbitrary exception with life, this exception has not been justified,

Turns out no such exception has been made.

my case for design

A we all agree that the existence of a designer capable of creating life (ether natural or supernatural ) is at least possible

No, I agree it is logically possible for an intelligent designer to create life. BUT, I don't know whether it is ACTUALLY possible. Just because something does not imply a logical contradiction, does not mean it is truly possible in the real world.

Real-world possibility has to be demonstrated, or derived by inference from unobjectionable premises. It can't just be assumed from logic alone merely because it isn't incoherent or absurd.

B a designer would solve the entropy problems, a designer can create low entropy form high entropy,

Heat alone solves the entropy problem. Entropy is not an obstacle here. The question is what conditions lead to the correct type of organization required for life? The LEVEL of organization and complexity isn't the problem.

C there are many other entropy, fine tuning and chicken and egg problems that a designer would also solve, this includes both problems related and unrelated problems to the origin of life

I'm sure you can imagine ways in which an omnipotent, unconstrained designer would solve any imaginable problem. But this is not a strength of the design claim, it is a weakness. It has infinite explanatory power. We couldn't imagine, even in principle, a data-set we could not just rationalize in ad-hoc fashion was what "the designer wanted to design". Because, we don't know what the designer wants, so he could want anything and everything, and he has the power to do anything and everything.

You haven't disagreed with B and C ether, so unless you clarify I will assume that you also agree with them.

so under the basis of 1,2,3,4, 5 a,b and c I am affirming that design is a better explanation for abiogenesis than nature.

Design is no explanation at all. There is no explanation going on. There is no mechanism or logical connections of any sort. The design explanations amounts to simply uttering the word "design". There is nothing "inside" the term that really explains anything.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Last edited by Rumraket on Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:27 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

A designer would solve...

Nope, because you still need the designer to have existed absent of all those restrictions prior to everything.

It's a Get out of Jail Free card, not an argument. Unfalsifiable hypotheses only indicate question-begging.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:41 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:So in conclusion.

my case against natural abiogenesis


1 We all agree that no one has ever seen life coming from none life, and we all agree that no one has ever seen water turning in to wine

2 we all agree that Life coming from none life, implies low entropy coming from high entropy, and we all agree that water turning in to wine also implies low entropy coming from high entropy.

3 we all agree that there is no known mechanism that would organice organic molecules in the required order and patter required to create life, we all agree that there is no known natural mechanism that would organice molecules in the environment, in the order and patter required to do wine.

4 Based on 1,2,3 we all agree that "almost certainly " nature cant turn water in to wine

5 you are making an arbitrary exception with life, this exception has not been justified,

Biological thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is concerned primarily with whether or not a given process is possible. The Second Law states that no natural process can occur unless it is accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the universe.[7] Stated differently, an isolated system will always tend to disorder. Living organisms are often mistakenly believed to defy the Second Law because they are able to increase their level of organization. To correct this misinterpretation, one must refer simply to the definition of systems and boundaries. A living organism is an open system, able to exchange both matter and energy with its environment. For example, a human being takes in food, breaks it down into its components, and then uses those to build up cells, tissues, ligaments, etc. This process increases order in the body, and thus decreases entropy. However, humans also 1) conduct heat to clothing and other objects they are in contact with, 2) generate convection due to differences in body temperature and the environment, 3) radiate heat into space, 4) consume energy-containing substances (i.e., food), and 5) eliminate waste (e.g., carbon dioxide, water, and other components of breath, urine, feces, sweat, etc.). When taking all these processes into account, the total entropy of the greater system (i.e., the human and her/his environment) increases. When the human ceases to live, none of these processes (1-5) take place, and any interruption in the processes (esp. 4 or 5) will quickly lead to morbidity and/or mortality.


leroy wrote:my case for design

A we all agree that the existence of a designer capable of creating life (ether natural or supernatural ) is at least possible

Alien, yes - whose existence is based on abiogenesis.

Deity, no. You need to define the deity's properties first, and explain how this deity came into existence.

leroy wrote:B a designer would solve the entropy problems, a designer can create low entropy form high entropy,

Such "problems" don't exist - see the article to which I linked.

leroy wrote:C there are many other entropy, fine tuning and chicken and egg problems that a designer would also solve, this includes both problems related and unrelated problems to the origin of life

Non-existent "problems" as the result of your bastardized understanding of entropy, etc.

leroy wrote:You haven't disagreed with B and C ether, so unless you clarify I will assume that you also agree with them.

I - and, I'm sure, everyone else who understands entropy here - disagrees with your nonsensical claims.

leroy wrote:so under the basis of 1,2,3,4, 5 a,b and c I am affirming that design is a better explanation for abiogenesis than nature.

You're wrong - it isn't.

Nature, and naturally occurring processes, are all that's needed.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:03 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests