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 22
 [ 440 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Now your projecting your inability to defend your monkey man faith in me.

Now you're projecting your inability to defend your faith problem on to me.

I can defend. Bible

That's not a defense, you're just repeating yourself. You have faith in the bible. Why? Because you have faith in the bible. There's no reason why. You just have faith.

Everyone can just make up a faith.

I could say: There is no god and I believe it on faith. And I could say "I'm not afraid to admit I have faith".

What could you then do? Nothing, because I would be doing what YOU are doing, just using blind brainless faith. Then it would be impossible for us to show that the other guy is wrong. All we could ever do was just declare our faith to the other person. That is what faith gets you. Nowhere.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:57 pm
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Since faith is no defense you should be able to explain the monkey man has been observed.. . You know science.....

Since bible-faith is no defense you should be able to explain where creationism has been observed. You know, as in with real evidence. Not just old stories that you believe because you want to and are afraid.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:58 pm
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Claims monkey man ancestryl

Claims magical-man ancestry.

Claims faith is not a place to make claims from

Claims faith is rational.

Never seen the monkey man.

Never seen God or any act of creation.

But he still claims yes we come from monkey man

But he claims faith in the bible is fine, because of faith in the bible.

Lo

lol
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:59 pm
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Now the monkey cult is starting to make threats

Says the guy who is already in a cult, that already has been threatening everyone who don't believe in his faith-cult, with empty threats about magical punishment.

Cultish behaviour.

Says the literal advocate of a faith-cult.

No monkey man evidence of course....

But of course zero evidence for any of the creationism or magical talking creatures. Or magical fruits. Or magical virgin births.

Just old fairytales full of magic and space-wizards.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:01 am
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

thenexttodie wrote:I think you are overstating your case, Sparhafoc.


No, I am really not.

There is literally no way you would have sufficient time remaining in your life to review all the evidence of the age of the planet, and the evidence of billions of years of life on this planet.

I've studied human evolution for 2 decades, and I can assure you that my knowledge of all the evidence just of human evolution is far from complete. It is undeniable that anatomically modern human beings have been on this planet for 300,000 years. It is undeniable that other hominid species lived on this planet millions of years ago.

You can't deny this from a scientific perspective. Your denial is faith-based, but yet your faith doesn't remotely require you to believe that the Earth - or life on Earth - is just 10,000 years old.

It's a faith position of a faith position. It's also wrong both scripturally and empirically.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:02 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Same thing with aron ra..... once you got him to shut up his minions shit all over the board....

Same thing with the Jesus fable, as soon as you point out the obvious truth that his mom must have taken sticky loads in her cunt otherwise he wouldn't exist, the Jesus-cult minions go literally chimp and start shitting themselves. :lol:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:04 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Collage of phobics on here....

Says the reasonphobic faith-cult advocate. Except he doesn't understand the concept of advocacy.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:06 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Bernhard.visscher wrote:And nothing about his monkey man faith.....

And nothing about any reason why anyone should accept the faith-method. It's just repeating the same faith-nonsense all the time.

If any position can be justified with faith, then all positions can be justified with faith. But of course, a faith-head wouldn't get that.

I say my faith comes from bible....

It doesn't matter where it comes from. Faith can't be justified.

Where does his monkey man come from? He can't even admit faith.

Where is the reason to accept the faith method? He can't even admit there is none.

Hilarious... he remains a faithophobe

Hilarious.. he remains reasonphobic. He literally is afraid of reason and logic. And he hates science and evidence.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:09 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

On the subject of "monkey man". Here's some creationist logic for you:

Creationists will insist the fossil transition from ape-like ancestors to modern humans is impossible, because they're different biblical kinds. Yet the transition from wolves to domestic dogs, that one is just fine to them.
Image

They will accept wildly different species of ants could evolve through "microevolution". But a comparable transition for apes they find impossible:
Image

Creationists assert that there are no ape-to-human transitional fossils. Yet when creationists were asked to try to classify hominid fossils, they couldn't agree on whether they are "fully ape" or "fully human". Even more amazingly, some of the creationists would forget how they classified them earlier, and classify them differently later:
Image

When the Homo naledi fossils were found recently, creationists scrambled to try to deny they were transitional hominids, by once again trying to classify them as either fully human or fully ape. This is the result:
Image

Three different creationist institutions, three different answers. One creationist institution says it is fully ape, one says it is a mix of ape and human bones (thus proving that the actual fossils are truly transitional) and one says it is probably fully human.

So we have the logic employed by creationists itself being proof of human evolution.
"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 Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:24 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

And what can bernhard do? He can write the word "bible" and "faith".

No evidence, no logic, no arguments.

Just "bible faith in talking snakes and I'm proud of it".

Image
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:27 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1167Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
Bango Skank wrote:Nah, he needs to visit a witch doctor and have the bad spirits out from his head by drilling a hole into his skull. A really big hole....yuuuge!

While amusing, I am deadly serious. This man is deranged and possibly dangerous.

I believe you're right. He is on facebook, just search for Bernhard Visscher. You will find the profile of a man who is clearly deranged, and entirely plausibly dangerous.

He's obsessed with Obama and muslims of course. Oh my god the muslims are coming. Oh no.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:30 am
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:
I believe you're right. He is on facebook, just search for Bernhard Visscher. You will find the profile of a man who is clearly deranged, and entirely plausibly dangerous.

He's obsessed with Obama and muslims of course. Oh my god the muslims are coming. Oh no.


Yup, his FB page is mostly what I am referring to - although his deranged behavior here simply underscores it.

You can see him even here feeling claustrophobic about only being able to express his vicious prejudice for one thing (atheism), which is why he keeps bringing up Muslims as if they're one and the same thing.

The truth is that he mimics the crackpot Muslims he hates so blindly - they are one and the same entity, and the only reason Bernie is a vacuous, mouth-breathing Christian fundamentalist is that he wasn't brought up in the Middle East... or he'd be a vacuous, mouth-breathing Muslim fundamentalist, using all the same stupid arguments, acting out in such a loony manner, and hating on everyone who doesn't genuflect to his sordid self-delusion.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:21 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 765Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

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.

Ok, that's not really an answer but an attempt at a red herring. I can work with that though. So you agree with Leroy that your God is not alive then. Nice to know.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:21 am
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

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


Reproduction: God is claimed just to be, not to have come into existence, not to have undergone development or embryogenesis. No heredity.

Composed of cells? Not something I've ever heard of as God's characteristics.

No metabolism.

Homeostasis couldn't be considered possible if God is in everything.

So basically, the only primary characteristics of life that the purported God with Christian ontology could possess is response to stimuli.

I assume this is just TNTD's lack of knowledge about biology and the characteristics of life. Of course, because God isn't comprised of biology, then it's an easy Get Out Of Jail Free card when push comes to shove.

So we have a declaration that God is alive - scripturally based, even - but even assuming the Christian God's existence, the only way it could be labeled 'alive' is if we abandon every single common aspect of life in the universe, and simply declare God to be alive. Funny how Creationists worry about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when their God claim is in direct contradiction to that.

It's intriguing how the God contention requires faith position after faith position to protect it from logical and reason.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:33 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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.

Ok, let's consider it.
Let's consider Visaki and let's subtract every characteristic of "life" from him.

If we remove every charateristic of "life" from Visaki, we end up with non-life.

Was this thenexttodie's serious attempt at demonstrating god's characteristics of life?
"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
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:23 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

I haven't read any comment written after the comment I am quoting.

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:I answered to MarsCydonia[s concern

1 abiogenesis requires low entropy coming from high entropy

2 there is no natural mechanism that would force organic molecules (high entropy) to organice themselves in the order and pattern required to produce self replication, (low entropy) in the same way there is no natural mechanism that would organice molecules in the environment in the order and pattern required to create wine,

we always conclude intelligent design under this scenario, why making an exception with life?

I wish Leroy-the-slavery-apologist wouldn't make so many mistakes when he comments but since we're talking about Leroy-the-slavery-apologist, it is expected.
So since I'm concerned here, I'll lend him a hand here and correct the many mistakes:

[i]"I lied about answering MarsCydonia's as I haven't provided evidence for design

1. Abiogenesis requires "low entropy" coming from "high entropy", not as the term is used in the laws of thermodynamics but as in statistical thermodynamics.]


:lol: :lol:

I am impressed by the fact that you actually think that you are making a good point.


statistical thermodynamics is a fundamental principle of nature, and it explains why the second law of thermodynamics is true, denying statistical thermodynamics implies that you are denying the second law.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:32 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:

leroy wrote:1 I don't see how this article solves the fundamental problem presented by the other article, (care to explain)

Yes, the previous article worked exclusively from the standpoint of abstract chemistry and neglected to consider the spatial distribution of reactants. In other words, it has to do with where the different metabolic cycles and the reacting molecules are located in relation to each other. If they are separated in certain ways (what the authors call "cores"), these cores can then work together into larger entities, and function like something analogous to "phenotypes" and the interactions between the cores, and their growth or loss over time, can be analogous to mutation. So there can be a kind of replication of cores, and selection going on between different cores, in a kind of evolutionary competition. These factors were not considered in their ealier models. In a way, the later articles are more realistic because they consider factors involving time and space that the earlier models do not. They also show that similar effects can be obtained by considering physical compartmentalization.

leroy wrote:2 the "experiments" are not being set in a natural scenario, they are using a hypothetical chemistry or what the call "abstract chemistry"

That is true of BOTH of the articles. Both the FIRST article that argued against metabolism first, and the later one that explains that other scenarios are still possible, are hypothetical computer simulations.

It is very telling that you are much more inclined to believe the first one, yet reject the later article by the same authors, apparently only because the first one fits into your preconceptions. You are very keen on believing purely hypothetical, abstract computer simulation work, if it shows evolution or abiogenesis can't work, than you are if it shows in can work. That is indicative of a very high level of subconscious confirmation bias.

leroy wrote: if anything they are making a case for magic.

They are making a case for magic? How so? They perform computer simulations of chemistry using certain settings, and this is a case for magic? What is magic, even? How does it work? What are it's adjustable settings, it's rules and laws? How do you simulate it?

leroy wrote: one can also get wine from water using hypothetical chemistry.

No you can't. You can get the atomic constituents of wine from water using NUCLEAR FUSION and radioactive decay. But you don't end up with wine, just a gaseous phase of isotopes. But that's nuclear physics, not chemistry.

leroy wrote:3 who cares, even ignoring 1 and 2 the article is not about creating life from none life, at most it would show that complex organic molecules can be created naturally, the problem is that even assuming complex fully formed proteins can be created, how do you organice them in the order and pattern required fro self replication.

This is all completely besides the point. YOU are the one who claimed metabolism first has been falsified, and I corrected that misapprehension. Nobody has claimed they have shown how life originated. So why are you even bringing that up? Did the mere mentioning of a theoretical possiblity get you so nervous you felt a need to declare science has yet to solve the origin of life? This is honestly quite ridiculous to behold.

Leroy: Metabolism first has been falsified according to this article.
Rumraket: Actually it hasn't, the authors of that article has shown that other scenarios are still possible.
Leroy: YOU STILL HAVEN'T SOLVED THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

lol



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

2 the second article does not seem to explain how to solve the problems presented by the first article.
Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101433.htm
.

3 Using abstract chemistry I can show how T rex could have been a fire-breathing creature, but nobody would find my research relevant. My point is that even if you showed a way of solving this particular problem by using abstract chemistry that would still be far from being a solution

4 this discussion on MF is irrelevant, I told you for the sake of this thread lets assume that this problem doesn't exist.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:52 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:It's done on a computer, using math? MAGIC!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

creating complex molecules using an unrealistic scenarios in a computer simulation is magic.

one can also create wine from water, walk on water and even resurrect with simulations, wouldn't you call that magic?

honestly why are philosophers, historians and theologians working so hard in looking for historical evidence for the resurrection if all they need is to create a resurrection in a simulation, by your logic this would count as meaningful evidence for the resurrection.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:01 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 826Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:I haven't read any comment written after the comment I am quoting.

:lol: :lol:

I am impressed by the fact that you actually think that you are making a good point.

statistical thermodynamics is a fundamental principle of nature, and it explains why the second law of thermodynamics is true, denying statistical thermodynamics implies that you are denying the second law.

I am amazed that Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist thinks cutting my comment to run from half of it makes any convincing answer to it (amazed that he still acts this cowardly in a written forum).

Can Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist understands any good points when his brainless-mind appears to be unable to address comment in their entirety?

So...
MarsCydonia wrote:Has Leroy-the-cowardly-slavery-apologist provided any evidence life was designed yet?

Or is he still trying to dig a gap to put god in?
"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
Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:07 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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



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

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

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


you are raising the bar unrealistically too high. literally nothing will convince you that a supernatural designer exists, no matter what the evidence is, there will always be possible naturalistic explanations.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:27 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 18 of 22
 [ 440 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rumraket, WarK, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests