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 18 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: 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: 2030Joined: 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: 3468Joined: 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: 2434Joined: 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.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:25 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3171Joined: 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: 2434Joined: 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.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:38 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: 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 avatarPosts: 2439Joined: 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: 889Joined: 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: 889Joined: 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: 2434Joined: 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.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:41 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: 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.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:43 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: 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 avatarPosts: 2439Joined: 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: 812Joined: 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
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: 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: 2030Joined: 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: 2030Joined: 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: 2030Joined: 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 avatar
Online
Posts: 3171Joined: 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
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 18 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests