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 23 of 24
 [ 472 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:04 pm
YIM WWW
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 234Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

There was a good article about this in Scientific America a couple of months ago. A very fascinating hypothesis.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:54 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody"[quote="leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: :lol:

Yet no links were provided. Why emphasis me asking you to provide links if you were not going to do it? Beyond that, I will just point one thing out since the rest of what you state is irrelevant, I already addressed it, and you quoted it above as well.



:lol: :lol: :lol: ok so I will simply add this to the list of questions that you haven't answered. honestly what is wrong with you? why are you unable to answer questions directly? in this case all you have to do is answer which of the points (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) you think is wrong.

after you tell me which point you think is wrong I will provide the links that show that the point is true.

remember, all you have to do is answer 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 just type the number, I am a very bad reader and any complex and elaborated answer might be misunderstood by me, so please answer clear an unambiguously which point do you think is a lie 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 just type the number , you just need to type a single key,


he_who_is_nobody wrote: :lol:

Yet no links were provided. Why emphasis me asking you to provide links if you were not going to do it? Beyond that, I will just point one thing out since the rest of what you state is irrelevant, I already addressed it, and you quoted it above as well.

leroy wrote:...

2 HWN: I don't accept your source

...

6 HWN> OHHH my problem is the source, not the definition of entropy, (admitting that you didn't answered my original question until this point)


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why not provide links to these claims, as I do, or just admit that you are lying? That would save us all a lot of time. Oh, and remember, just because my answer does not fall into your script does not mean I did not answer. It just means you are a terrible scrip writer.

[emphasis added]


If only you would start reading my post instead of mindlessly responding. Oh, well. It is easy to just quote myself back at you and provide the links that expose you.





there is something very wrong with you....why cant you simply answer the questions?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:10 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Excuse me pot, but kettle wants a word with you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:16 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:[stop right there, ... so do you admit that asking someone to show that there is no actual natural process that results in life is raising the bar unrealistically to high?.........this is a simple yes or no question.

Dragan Glas wrote:No.


well you are wrong, you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.
Dragan Glas wrote:We already have evidence for natural processes - we have absolutely none at all for supernatural processes.


All the evidence that we have to date indicates that nature can’t crate life from none life, the law of biogenesis is as evidently true as something can be, your only hope is to hide behind areas of human ignorance, and hope that someday somehow you will find a way to create life from none life naturally.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:20 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Visaki wrote:
Now we might manage to make life-from-non-life in a lab in a predatorless environment that was calibrated to correct parameters, but you wouldn't accept that as evidence because it was done in a lab by people, now would you..


wrong, if the lab simulates natural conditions I woudl accept the evidence and reject design as the best explanation for the origin of life.

And again Leroy has agreed that he also believes in abiogenesis, we only differ in the mechanisms we believe were responsible. I, or we, say natural processes are the most probably explanation and he says magic is


all you have to do is explain why is your mechanism more probably true than mine.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:23 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:


Is that the best you have? A mechanism that “maybe” could have created polymers? Remember my book analogy; all you have done is show that “maybe” ink can be created naturally, even if I grant that as true, design would still be the best explanation for meaningful sentences and paragraphs in the book.

Do you affirm that this mechanism is a better explanation than design?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:well you are wrong, you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.


LEROY's typical get out of jail free card when he finds he lacks the competence to address an argument.


leroy wrote:All the evidence that we have to date indicates that nature can’t crate life from none life, ...


Err, no. That's bollocks.

All the evidence to date supports the fact that life employs processes and components that are not themselves alive, plus the fact that the chemical and fossil evidence show how life arises completely contradicts your bullshit assertion.


leroy wrote:the law of biogenesis is as evidently true as something can be,


So after having all this explained to you, you are once again stonewalling all the explanations and repeating the same errors.

As has been explained to you:
Laws are not prescriptive.
Biogenesis is not a law.
Biogenesis is about reproduction, not about abiogenesis.


You couldn't be more wrong if you'd taken a dump on the table of discourse. Oh wait...


leroy wrote: your only hope is to hide behind areas of human ignorance, and hope that someday somehow you will find a way to create life from none life naturally.


Says the guy asserting bullshit to make space for his magical man in the sky.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:36 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:all you have to do is explain why is your mechanism more probably true than mine.


Less postulates, no excess entities, our mechanism is supported by evidence not an appeal to magic.

And that's done.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:38 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Is that the best you have?


Did he claim 'this is the best I have'?

No?

Well that shows how honest your discourse is, doesn't it?

Still, even if it was the best we have, it still vastly outclasses your wilful make-believe.


leroy wrote: A mechanism that “maybe” could have created polymers?


Duh no. A mechanism that does create polymers.


leroy wrote:Remember my book analogy; all you have done is show that “maybe” ink can be created naturally, even if I grant that as true, design would still be the best explanation for meaningful sentences and paragraphs in the book.


And as you were educated: ink can be created naturally, design is just the delusion of those ignorant of the way the world actually works.


leroy wrote:Do you affirm that this mechanism is a better explanation than design?


It manifestly is on every possible degree of inquiry.

Design is a joke, and you don't possess the competence to argue it.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:41 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:there is something very wrong with you....why cant you simply answer the questions?


Dandan/leroy, you really need to work on that reading comprehension. I even emphasised the answer for you. I can only lead a horse to water.

Beyond that, are you ever going to address my last relevant post about this or would you rather keep playing with this molehill? Just click the link whenever you get tired of running from it.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:


Is that the best you have?


No, a better one is back in this comment. You know, the one you keep running from.


leroy wrote:A mechanism that “maybe” could have created polymers? Remember my book analogy; all you have done is show that “maybe” ink can be created naturally, even if I grant that as true, design would still be the best explanation for meaningful sentences and paragraphs in the book.

Do you affirm that this mechanism is a better explanation than design?


This mechanism is by far a better explanation because it is real. Again, your design dream is nothing more than a blind assertion at this point. One might as well propose fairies as their assertion, it accomplishes the same. Remember when you said you were going to defend JesusDidIt? When are you ever going to do that?

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:the law of biogenesis is as evidently true as something can be,


So after having all this explained to you, you are once again stonewalling all the explanations and repeating the same errors.

As has been explained to you:
Laws are not prescriptive.
Biogenesis is not a law.
Biogenesis is about reproduction, not about abiogenesis.


You couldn't be more wrong if you'd taken a dump on the table of discourse. Oh wait...


The funniest thing about this is that dandan/leroy already admitted that the Law of Biogensis was actually not a challenge to the origin of life. One also has to remember that when dandan/leroy says "Law of biogensis" he met the "Second Law of Thermodynamics", and by "Second Law of Thermodynamics" he actually met "statistical entropy". Do not worry. Dandan/Leroy's modus operandi is to abandon a thread for a long time, than come back and rehash all the same debunked argument in the hopes that everyone forgot that they were debunked.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:24 pm
YIM WWW
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1187Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:All the evidence that we have to date indicates that nature can’t crate life from none life.

What is wrong with you? Have you somehow reset your brain in the last few months? We've been over this exact point now multiple times.

You seem to be able to fathom it at the moment when I inform you of it, but then something strange happens and it's like you hit a "reset" button for your brain, the portion of your memory that contains the information where I inform you of it is mysteriously erased, and we're back to square one. How many times must that cycle repeat itself?

Again, there is evidence that nature DID create life from non-life. As I have informed you of many many times:
...there is in fact evidence (not unassailable proof, but evidence nonetheless) that the origin of life was a process governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, as opposed to some sort of intelligent design. The inferred (by multiple independent methods) amino acid frequencies in the ancestors of the oldest known proteins strongly correlate with the distribution of amino acids produced in abiotic chemical reactions, and predicted to result from them by thermodynamics. As one would expect if life originated by a blind, unguided physical and chemical process whereby the first proteins were synthesized by polymerization of the sorts of amino acids that existed in the prebiotic environment.

Higgs PG, Pudritz RE. A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code. Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90. [DOI: 10.1089/ast.2008.0280]

Trifonov EN. Consensus temporal order of amino acids and evolution of the triplet code. Gene. 2000 Dec 30;261(1):139-51. [PMID: 11164045]

Brooks DJ, Fresco JR, Lesk AM, Singh M. Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1645-55. [PMID: 12270892]

This is evidence for a physical/chemical origin of life, and evidence against intelligent design, because this is the kind of evidence you would rationally predict if life originated by a chemical and physical process. But if life originated by intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted. For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2017.


And there is zero evidence that nature "can't" produce life from non-life. The only way you can have evidence for such a claim is if you have evidence that shows that the transition from non-life to life requires a violation of a fundamental law or force of nature. There is no such evidence.

So, can we just put your recurring falsehood claim to it's decisive death?

Whatever it is you believe about God and God's role and actions in this world and it's history, can't you just believe it and stop saying falsehoods? You are stating a demonstrable falsehood when you claim there is no evidence for abiogenesis, or even worse, that there is evidence that abiogenesis can't naturally happen. It just isn't true.

Does your religious faith require you to keep saying things that have been shown to be false? If you are somehow required by religious doctrine to constantly say things that don't square with observable reality, then isn't that in itself a pretty good argument against the religious doctrine you adhere to?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:13 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 778Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Funny thing is that of all the things Legoy accuses Abiogenesis of are pretty much all true about his claim of a magical supernatural creator entity. But because it's magic one doesn't have to worry about it.

Oh, and as a reminder Leroy doesn't think that the original claim, that life only comes from life, is right.
Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:18 am
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Beyond that, are you ever going to address my last relevant post about this or would you rather keep playing with this molehill? Just click the link whenever you get tired of running from it.



Ok you what to end with this molehill then please address the arguments that I am providing, you “last relevant post” as you call it is full of red hearings and irrelevant stuff.

The relevant point is this:
Natural Abiogenesis inherits an entropy problem (not to mention other problems) this means that there are many possible combinations and states I which amino acids can exists but only few configurations would produce something that we would call life (organic self replicating stuff) and there is nothing in the laws or the mechanisms in nature that would force the required order and configuration. (this is why “snowflakes” is not analogous to this, in the case of snowflakes we have a mechanism that forces hexagonal patterns. ) This is analogous to “there are many combinations and states in which ink can exists but only few combinations would produce a book with letters and meaningful sentences.

It is also worth mentioning that this “entropy the problem” because more problematic as scientific knowledge improves, in other words far from solving the problem, science has discovered that the problem is more difficult to solve than previously thought.

We both agree that this entropy problem, the only difference seems to be that we have different opinions on how to handle this problem.

You believe that this is a minor problem and that one can simply sit on the couch and assume that science someday will solve this problem.

I would say that this is a big problem and that we should put in to question natural abiogenesis.

My position is grounded on the fact that every time “nature” encounters an analogous problem we always infer intelligent design, if we find a book with meaningful sentences we would always infer design, even if we don’t know who the designer is, nor where did he come from.

You position seems to be grounded on the fact that according to you design should be rejected by default.

PS changing water in to wine, inherits the same entropy problem and you already admitted that changing water in to wine (in some contexts) would imply a miracle, so why not using the same logic with life? Why making this arbitrary exception?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:09 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:[

Again, there is evidence that nature DID create life from non-life. As I have informed you of many many times:





Your “evidence” was not ignored, I have said many times that for the sake of this thread we are assuming that amino acids can be created naturally, and to include your papers, we can assume that amino acids appeared in any ratio and chronological order that you might find convenient.

You still have the entropy problem that has been described + many other problems

And there is zero evidence that nature "can't" produce life from non-life. The only way you can have evidence for such a claim is if you have evidence that shows that the transition from non-life to life requires a violation of a fundamental law or force of nature. There is no such evidence.



Not true, the existence of pink elephants does not contradict any fundamental law ether, but it is still fare to assume that pink elephants don’t exist, anyone who affirms that pink elephants exists has a burden proof. Similarly you are affirming that abiogenesis took place naturally so you have a burden proof.


There is no fundamental law that prevents ink to form meaningful sentences naturally but anyone who claims that a book was created naturally would have to face a fundamental “statistical problem” and this problem would be so big that any “nature did it hypothesis” would be dropped
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:20 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:The relevant point is this:
Natural Abiogenesis inherits an entropy problem (not to mention other problems) this means that there are many possible combinations and states I which amino acids can exists but only few configurations would produce something that we would call life (organic self replicating stuff)

It doesn't.

leroy wrote:and there is nothing in the laws or the mechanisms in nature that would force the required order and configuration. (this is why “snowflakes” is not analogous to this, in the case of snowflakes we have a mechanism that forces hexagonal patterns. ) This is analogous to “there are many combinations and states in which ink can exists but only few combinations would produce a book with letters and meaningful sentences.

Your bald assertion really doesn't have a single strand of hair on it.
Natural mechanism do not exists dependent on whether Leroy-the-slavery-apologist believes they do.

leroy wrote:It is also worth mentioning that this “entropy the problem” because more problematic as scientific knowledge improves, in other words far from solving the problem, science has discovered that the problem is more difficult to solve than previously thought.


leroy wrote:We both agree that this entropy problem, the only difference seems to be that we have different opinions on how to handle this problem.

You believe that this is a minor problem and that one can simply sit on the couch and assume that science someday will solve this problem.

I would say that this is a big problem and that we should put in to question natural abiogenesis.

Right... You want to propose "magic" as a solution.

Your positive evidence for magic? Nothing.

leroy wrote:My position is grounded on the fact that every time “nature” encounters an analogous problem we always infer intelligent design, if we find a book with meaningful sentences we would always infer design, even if we don’t know who the designer is, nor where did he come from.

Your position is grounded that everytime there is gap in our knowledge of nature, you always want to fill that gap with "god did it".

leroy wrote:You position seems to be grounded on the fact that according to you design should be rejected by default.

Diseases: A natural explanation was found to replace "magic"
Earthquake: A natural explanation was found to replace "magic"
Rainbows: A natural explanation was found to replace "magic"
Volcanoes: A natural explanation was found to replace "magic"

Our position is that "magic" because a lack of knowledge has never turned out to be the actual answer.

leroy wrote:PS changing water in to wine, inherits the same entropy problem and you already admitted that changing water in to wine (in some contexts) would imply a miracle, so why not using the same logic with life? Why making this arbitrary exception?

Why make an arbitrary exception and put god in this gap?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:28 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:anyone who affirms that pink elephants exists has a burden proof. Similarly you are affirming that abiogenesis took place naturally so you have a burden proof.

Anyone who affirms life was created by magic has a burden of proof.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:30 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:anyone who affirms that pink elephants exists has a burden proof. Similarly you are affirming that abiogenesis took place naturally so you have a burden proof.

Anyone who affirms life was created by magic has a burden of proof.


Whether if I accept my burden or not is irrelevant, you are still making a positive argument, and you still have to carry your own burden prove.


You seem to be saying “Leroy is not supporting his assertions therefore I don’t have to do it ether”
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:38 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

MarsCydonia wrote:

leroy wrote:
PS changing water in to wine, inherits the same entropy problem and you already admitted that changing water in to wine (in some contexts) would imply a miracle, so why not using the same logic with life? Why making this arbitrary exception?


Why make an arbitrary exception and put god in this gap?

.



I am not putting God, I am putting a designer, that may or may not be God.

This is not an arbitrary exception, we always putt a designer every time we have this kind of entropy problems, the question “who their designer is?” is always treated as an independent question.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:43 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Whether if I accept my burden or not is irrelevant, you are still making a positive argument, and you still have to carry your own burden prove.

"My burden of proof is irrelevant, please ignore my burden of proof!!!"

- Positive evidence provided for abiogenesis? Well, we can see the comments, there are multiple comments addressing this (none however that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist did not hand wave away)

- Positive evidence provided for magic? None at effing all.

But in a refreshing twist, Leroy did say something true for once:
leroy wrote:Leroy is not supporting his assertions
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:46 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 23 of 24
 [ 472 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rumraket and 4 guests
cron