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 20 of 23
 [ 453 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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: 1530Joined: 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.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:47 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1175Joined: 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: 1530Joined: 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.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:41 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: 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
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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?


In fact I missed the post where you debunked my premises, can you quoted it please?


honestly is there anything relevant and worthy of mentioning that I ignored?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:37 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Dragan Glas wrote: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



1 Thanks for that interesting link, but can you explain why is it relevant?

2 pretending that these problems regarding the origin of life don't excist is simply delusional
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:41 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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 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?


In fact I missed the post where you debunked my premises, can you quoted it please?


honestly is there anything relevant and worthy of mentioning that I ignored?


: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.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:54 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1530Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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.



:lol:

Remember, LEROY doesn't do things like 'read'. That's for lesser beings.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:25 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

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.

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

leroy wrote:Thanks for that interesting link, but can you explain why is it relevant?

2 pretending that these problems regarding the origin of life don't excist is simply delusional

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
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
Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:35 am
SparhafocPosts: 1530Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

I don't understand how arguments from incredulity work, so they don't exist.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:38 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1175Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't understand how arguments from incredulity work, so they don't exist.

How's this for irony: I don't believe appeals to incredulity exist, so they don't! :lol:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:34 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2380Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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.

Next, and this is really important, entropy isn't binary. It isn't low entropy and high entropy and nothing in between. It's a spectrum, or gradient.

You can think of energy as being like a waterfall. All the energy in the universe is cascading down a gradient, like water going over a waterfall. The top of the waterfall is the Planck time, and the bottom of the waterfall is absolute zero (there are problems immediately here because, in this instance, the bottom of the waterfall isn't actually something that can be reached, but we'll overlook that for the moment).

So, you have this cascade of energy, going basically from hot to cold, which we can compare with water going from top to bottom. Now, with all this water rushing past, picture a little dimple in the face of the rock. Because of this dimple, some of the water can slow down, meaning that it can get to a locally higher entropy, lower energy state. Over time, this little simple will be eroded away, so that more and more water can collect in it before it overflows and the water continues down the gradient.

You can think of life as being much like this. Indeed, you can think of all the things upon which life relies as being like this. When you have energy rushing down the gradient, and especially when you have something that can make little dimples form in the rock face, such as oh, I don't, know,

Image

You have something that can pause the rush downhill, and cause that energy to gather in one place. Over time, that gathering will increase, holding more and more of the downrushing energy in that place until the background entropy level falls below the level of the clump, at which point it will continue down the hill.

Thinking of life as being low entropy is entirely the wrong way to look at it. Life comes about BECAUSE OF entropy, because it allows energy locally to find a lower energy state much quicker than the fall down the face is going to do.

Animals are incredibly efficient at holding energy at these states, not least because there's all that useful energy from above it on the gradient cascading past, ready to be capture.

Honestly, nobody who actually understands entropy remotely thinks that life, evolution, or indeed any other process in the universe is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, guess what? If it were, the second law of thermodynamics would be comprehensively falsified.

I covered this in considerably more detail here:

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... sited.html

This is what the real science says, not the school of thought that treats science as a branch of apologetics.
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:54 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Sparhafoc wrote:
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?


If I am correct that there exists a God who says he is alive, I don't see how there would be any reason for me to think He is not alive.
“..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 Sep 27, 2017 6:25 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[quote="hackenslash"]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..

Your website is really awesome. The way you write is very enjoyable to me and would be much more enjoyable to read you from a printed page. Write a book! You can fucking do it!
“..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 Sep 27, 2017 7:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1530Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

thenexttodie wrote:If I am correct that there exists a God who says he is alive, I don't see how there would be any reason for me to think He is not alive.



Well, if nothing else, the question-begging should very strongly warn you that your idea is suspect.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:41 am
SparhafocPosts: 1530Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

hackenslash wrote:Honestly, nobody who actually understands entropy remotely thinks that life, evolution, or indeed any other process in the universe is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, guess what? If it were, the second law of thermodynamics would be comprehensively falsified.



"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:43 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2380Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

thenexttodie wrote:Your website is really awesome. The way you write is very enjoyable to me and would be much more enjoyable to read you from a printed page. Write a book! You can fucking do it!


Thank you. I am actually in the progress of writing a book, and in fact the blog isn't really a conventional blog, it's author's notes for a book in progress. The reason it's presented as a blog is because I have very many extremely erudite and knowledgeable friends (not least Sparhafoc and Rumraket here, cohorts for more than a decade) who can see it there and offer corrections to any errors they spot.

Appreciated, though. Cheers.
Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:03 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2380Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Honestly, nobody who actually understands entropy remotely thinks that life, evolution, or indeed any other process in the universe is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, guess what? If it were, the second law of thermodynamics would be comprehensively falsified.



"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.


lol
Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:04 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

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

this is just semantics,

The attributes of the entity you follow absolutely are "semantics"? The crux of the whole original claim is "semantics"? It must be so comfy being that flexible with truth and honesty, never having to actually think the hard questions in the least.

I am defining life in this thread as something organic that can reproduce, so by this definition God would not be life. thenexttodie probably has a different definitions in mind

So you admit that your God is not alive then. Nice to see that theists agree on something. As I've said more than once everyone here agrees that the original claim is false then, and that abiogenesis took place in one form or another.

Also, something "being life" is another example of theist-talk that doesn't make any sense.
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:24 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 20 of 23
 [ 453 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests