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 21 of 24
 [ 472 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:
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 things

1 yes that is a valid description of the problem, and yes you need more than just low entropy to create life, or to turn water in to wine,

2 this is the definition of entropy that we are using in this thread
entropy is a measure of uncertainty or probability. If a system is in an improbable configuration, it is said to be in a state of low entropy.

The classic analogy employed here is the desktop strewn with bits of paper. You can move one piece of paper without appreciably altering the appearance of the desktop. Statistically speaking, this configuration, or one of the many configurations it could have while still remaining untidy, is more probable than one in which the desktop is tidy. Thus, it is in a state of high entropy.



3 yes, entropy is relevant, there are many combinations in which molecules in the atmosphere can exist but only one or few combinations would produce something that you would call wine or life. (this is low entropy)

but I am not interested in discussing semantics, you did represented the problem accurately, so for the purpose of this thread, lets simply call it "the problem" feel free not to call it an entropy problem is you don't want.

Rumraket wrote:
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.


bla bla bla

the point is that the problem is still there, there are many ways in which molecules can exists but only 1 or few combinations would produce something that you would call wine or life.

and there is no natural mechanism that forces this molecules in the order and pattern required to make wine or life.

on the basis of this problem, we all agree that water can not turn in to wine naturally, why not agreeing that life can not be created naturally un the basis of the same problem?


* When I talk about turning water in to wine, I am talking about an event as described by WHN a few weeks ago, if a glass of water suddenly becomes a glass of wine, you will infer intelligent design (ether natural or supernatural design) because you know that the laws of nature would not organice the molecules in the environment and create wine.


So in summery we both agree that there is "a problem" the disagreement is no whether if the problem is a minor gap in hour knowledge or a fundamental problem.

in the case of wine, we both agree that this problem is fundamental. so why are you making an exception with life?

under what basis do you affirm that this problem is not fundamental?

Rumraket wrote: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. [/quote]

so we both agree that the existence of a designer is logically possible.

as a secondary note....

what do you mean by Real-world possibility ? to me there is no difference between logically possible and Real-world possibility


Rumraket wrote: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.


ok, so my point is that an intelligent designer (ether natural or supernatural) would solve "the problem" (feel free not to call it an entropy problem)

a powerful designer, can organice molecules in any order that he wants, he can organice molecules in the order and pattern required to do wine, or in the order and pattern to create life.

Rumraket wrote: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.


.



1 the point is that there are more than 1 "problems" that would be solved by a designer, this is strength of the argument.

2 you don't seem to have any problem in postulating intelligent design as an explanation for some phenomena, you are making an arbitrarily exception with life.

your objection is arbitrary, you don't need to know that an artists wants a priori, in order to conclude that a painting was designed,

3 the same "objection" would apply to an "unknown natural mechanism did it" unknown natural mechanisms can create anything and everything too. unknown natural mechanism also has infinite explanatory power.

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.


again, same arbitrary exception, design is a common type of explanation, why are you excluding this explanation when it comes to the origin of life?


sometimes we don't know the mechanisms that designers use to build a building, but that doesn't seem to be a problem, we can still conclude that building where caused by intelligent designers.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:27 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:Let me just address this 'entropy' canard properly, because there's all sorts of dancing around it without the issues regarding it ever being properly addressed.

First, life from non-life doesn't constitute low entropy from high entropy. That's a complete failure to understand what entropy actually is. Indeed, we aren't even a representation of low entropy, because that's not how it works.
.


wrong hackenslash, a cell has lower entropy than say an "organic soup" for the same reason a tidy desk has lower entropy than an untidy desk.

this is the definition of entropy that I am using for the purpose of this thread.
entropy is a measure of uncertainty or probability. If a system is in an improbable configuration, it is said to be in a state of low entropy.

The classic analogy employed here is the desktop strewn with bits of paper. You can move one piece of paper without appreciably altering the appearance of the desktop. Statistically speaking, this configuration, or one of the many configurations it could have while still remaining untidy, is more probable than one in which the desktop is tidy. Thus, it is in a state of high entropy.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:22 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Dragan Glas wrote:It's relevant because it explains why your claimed "problems" don't exist, and that it is you who is delusional in claiming that they do.

Kindest regards,

James


to say that these problems don't exist is delusional, many scientists are trying hard to solve this problems precisely because these problems exist.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:28 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote: :docpalm:

As I have already said, your only real strength has been your willful obtuseness. The link is in the post you are quoting. Feel free to click on it or remain obtuse.



what a surprise, he_who_is_nobody is posting random links that have nothing to do with the stuff that he is suppose to answer.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:35 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:It's relevant because it explains why your claimed "problems" don't exist, and that it is you who is delusional in claiming that they do.

Kindest regards,

James

to say that these problems don't exist is delusional, many scientists are trying hard to solve this problems precisely because these problems exist.

They exist only in your mind due to your lack of understanding of the physics involved.

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 Oct 01, 2017 12:44 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:this is the definition of entropy that I am using for the purpose of this thread.


You can use whatever definitions you like. I don't give a flying fuck what a fuckwit thinks on the topic and, as somebody well-versed in physics, I'll stick with the definitions employed in the primary literature.

Don't like it? Fuck you. You don't get to dictate how others use words.
Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:11 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:this is the definition of entropy that I am using for the purpose of this thread.


You can use whatever definitions you like. I don't give a flying fuck what a fuckwit thinks on the topic and, as somebody well-versed in physics, I'll stick with the definitions employed in the primary literature.

Don't like it? Fuck you. You don't get to dictate how others use words.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

the definition comes from your blog you i%&=t, that is your definition you are suppose to accept it,


entropy is a measure of uncertainty or probability. If a system is in an improbable configuration, it is said to be in a state of low entropy.

The classic analogy employed here is the desktop strewn with bits of paper. You can move one piece of paper without appreciably altering the appearance of the desktop. Statistically speaking, this configuration, or one of the many configurations it could have while still remaining untidy, is more probable than one in which the desktop is tidy. Thus, it is in a state of high entropy.
http://www.hackenslash.co.uk/2016/04/order-order.html
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:10 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: :docpalm:

As I have already said, your only real strength has been your willful obtuseness. The link is in the post you are quoting. Feel free to click on it or remain obtuse.



what a surprise, he_who_is_nobody is posting random links that have nothing to do with the stuff that he is suppose to answer.


Not sure why you feel like lying on a written forum. Anyone can go back to the post you are quoting and see that the link I provided addressed your last relevant post. That is exactly what I was supposed to be answering. With one click, another lie from dandan/leroy is exposed. Perhaps one day dandan/leroy will realize the folly of lying on a written forum.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:38 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Perhaps one day dandan/leroy will realize the folly of lying on a written forum.


You outlandish optimist, you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:22 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Sparhafoc wrote:
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?


God was alive before the universe was created.
“..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
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:21 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

thenexttodie wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
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?


God was alive before the universe was created.



An assertion that has nothing to do with the question posed.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:26 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Sparhafoc wrote:An assertion that has nothing to do with the question posed.


It has everything to do with question posed.
“..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
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:06 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

thenexttodie wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:An assertion that has nothing to do with the question posed.


It has everything to do with question posed.


No, it's just equivocation and it was predicted.

The actual question posed was this:

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?


Ergo, your actual answer is: special pleading.

And we're still at the logical position that this God chap possesses precisely zero of any definable characteristics of life - just an assertion of life.

Tis the nature of the beastie, I'm afraid: assertions all the way down.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:18 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

If God says he is alive, I think it would be correct for us to believe Him.

If you wanted to, Sparhafoc, you could argue that God is not alive because He is not dependent on biological functions. I am not sure how this would be helpful. I would not be wrong to insist otherwise.
“..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
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

thenexttodie wrote:If God says he is alive, I think it would be correct for us to believe Him.


Well, let's be frank: God doesn't say it because God does not talk to people who are not suffering mental issues.

What you mean is that it is written in the Bible.

Of course, there are many things written in the Bible that are clearly of solely human provenance. If rationality is being applied before blind faith, anyway.

So, my question to you is how you find yourself defending a position by employing a) special pleading and b) circular reasoning.

Surely, from a rational perspective, a position that requires both special pleading and circular reasoning is highly problematic.


thenexttodie wrote:If you wanted to, Sparhafoc, you could argue that God is not alive because He is not dependent on biological functions. I am not sure how this would be helpful. I would not be wrong to insist otherwise.


So God is a type of life unlike any other life we know. And the only reason you argue that God is alive is because of dogma like Jeremiah 10:10, a passage clearly written by humans (clearly, because they are referring to God in the 3rd person) with all the foibles, confusions, and unwarranted beliefs of any human, coupled with the fact that they lived in a preliterate, pre-education period.

And if you wanted to TNTD, you could answer every question 'because the Bible says so' but naturally that's a bizarre line to take with people who don't accept your book as anything other than the credulity of our distant ancestors. Or you could just say 'because I believe so on faith alone' and be absolutely honest with yourself and everyone.

Do you have any other argument - I would say 'good reason' but naturally you think a few words much translated through the ages is sufficient which I assuredly do not, so I will just say 'any other argument'? Clearly, your faith in X does not and cannot be expected to convince anyone of X who does not share that faith.

As an aside, I think this is the path towards Creationism - idolatry of faith positions, stacked one atop the other.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

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


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.



So let's go back to this as it was your primary conjecture, and I don't think it is consistent with where you have now trundled.

Every characteristic of life I share with this plant is... every characteristic of life. There's not one characteristic of life I possess that the plant does not, and vice-versa. How we go about life is a bit different in terms of processes, but the characteristics are all there.

Now try it with your God.

I subtract all the characteristics of life according to you, but then somehow the God is still alive.

So what you're really saying is that you have no good reason to call God 'alive' other than a sentence written in a book. How can the written word have so much power over you when you know how easy it is to write a sentence, regardless of its logical validity or correspondence to reality?

Also, this God has purported characteristics that are contradictory even to the concept of life. If God exists outside of time, how can God be 'alive'? Life is a process, and processes can't occur without time. God created matter, so God can't be made of matter itself, but rather be what? A medium-less life?

How about this, TNTD? Let's cut to the chase here. You know precisely fuck all about your God's characteristics. You have taken on faith some declarations in the Bible, but in terms of actual knowledge - as in, facts you can show to be true - you have precisely none. Now either you know that, and your argument is not really honest... or you don't know that and yet you have fooled yourself into believing that you know something you cannot possibly know, and when one lifts the hood, there's nothing other than the hood - the assertion.

Now, I've got a friend who was a master-super-whateveritscalled-Astrologist who was making a living out of it. Over the years, I'd never contested his quirky make-believe because it made him happy, didn't do anyone any harm, and he never asked me or tried to push it on me. Then one day just a few years ago, he came to visit me and we watched some comedy skits. One made fun of Astrology and he got religiously angry. He was horrified when I admitted I thought it was bunk, but he gave me a moment to explain and somehow, I got through to him. I appealed to the same problem I've just engaged you with. Really: what do you actually know if you're being viciously honest with yourself? I asked him how it works then - he had a science background, he understands the notion of mechanisms operating, forces interacting and the like - and he couldn't explain it. So I asked whether it was a very coherent belief system when whatever effects he thinks he perceives, he can't actually explain to himself or to even a sympathetic listener. To his credit, he went away and thought about it, then shucked off the mind-virus realizing there was no logical, rational, or realistic way to hold to a belief system that is all veneer and lacks any substance.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:56 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:

As I have already said, your only real strength has been your willful obtuseness. The link is in the post you are quoting. Feel free to click on it or remain obtuse.


this has happened before,

1 I ask a question

2 you answer something that has nothing to do with my question

3 I repeat my question

4 you refuse to answer because according to you, you already answered.

5 we repeat 3 and 4 like 6 or 7 times

6 you end up admitting that you didn't answer the question.





so why don't we simply safe a few steps and go directly to 6?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:55 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:

As I have already said, your only real strength has been your willful obtuseness. The link is in the post you are quoting. Feel free to click on it or remain obtuse.


this has happened before,

1 I ask a question

2 you answer something that has nothing to do with my question

3 I repeat my question

4 you refuse to answer because according to you, you already answered.

5 we repeat 3 and 4 like 6 or 7 times

6 you end up admitting that you didn't answer the question.





so why don't we simply safe a few steps and go directly to 6?


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.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:49 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Everyone here knows the reality of LEROY's bullshit loaded questions which he refuses to modify, and demands people jump his hoops. Every single person here... so as usual, the question is: who does LEROY think he's fooling?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:16 am
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

Sparhafoc wrote:Everyone here knows the reality of LEROY's bullshit loaded questions which he refuses to modify, and demands people jump his hoops. Every single person here... so as usual, the question is: who does LEROY think he's fooling?


A better question is, why is dandan/leroy obfuscating about this instead of sticking to the OP? Almost like he realize he cannot defend magic against reality.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:21 am
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 21 of 24
 [ 472 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Rumraket and 5 guests