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 19 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: 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: 2030Joined: 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 avatar
Online
Posts: 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: :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: 2433Joined: 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: 889Joined: 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: 2433Joined: 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: 889Joined: 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: 2433Joined: 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: 889Joined: 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: 2433Joined: 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: 2433Joined: 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: 2030Joined: 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 avatar
Online
Posts: 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 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: 2433Joined: 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 avatar
Online
Posts: 3468Joined: 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
Steelmage99Posts: 197Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
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?


Bullshit, leroy. Pure unadulterated bullshit.

Just because your script fails, it doesn't mean that the question wasn't answered.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:52 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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


Well done. You entirely missed the point of the interjection.

Seriously go away and learn to think.
Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:22 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy
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?

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


sure


1 Leroy: Do you accept this definition of entropy?

2 HWN: I don't accept your source

3 Leroy> ok but that was not my question, I didn't ask if you like the source, I asked if you accept the definition, so do you accept the definition of entropy?

4 HWN> I already answered

5 (we repeated 3 and 4)

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



so according to you, which of these points is a lie, so that I can provide the links and prove that I am not lying ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:56 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
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.


I am assuming that
OP = ORIGINAL POINT

The last time I tried to go back to the original point and ignored secondary and minor details, you accused me for ignoring your comments.


I have no problem in going back to the original point.

I already provided reasons for why I believe that design is a better explanation than nature, what you have to do is provide your reasons for preferring nature over design, and then explain why are your reasons more valid than mine.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:05 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

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


Well done. You entirely missed the point of the interjection.

Seriously go away and learn to think.


Irrelevant, it is still a fact that you rejected "my" definition of entropy, even though I quoted directly from your blog. this proves that you rejected the definition by default without even reading it this is what fanatic close-minded individuals do, they reject by default any comment made by someone with a different world view.


of course your article is basically wrong, pretty much the only thing that you got right is the definition of entropy,


so with that said, and assuming that we both agree with that definition of entropy

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




we both agree that that a tidy desktop (low entropy) can not come from an untidy desktop (high entropy) naturally, because a tidy desktop is an improbable configuration, and there is no natural mechanism that would force stuff in the desk to organice in the order and pattern required to create a tidy desktop.

for example there is not a natural mechanism that would put important papers in a folder and unimportant papers in the trashcan.

design would be a better explanation for a tidy desk and this would be true even if you don't have prior knowledge or proof for the existence of a designer that could have ordered your desk.


so why not applying the same logic with life? a configuration of organic molecules that would produce something that you would call life is improbable (like a tidy desk...low entropy) and there is no natural mechanism that would organice molecules in the order and pattern required to produce life (just like there is no natural mechanism that would organice a desk in a tidy way)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:35 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 19 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests