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 5 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:[
Frank did so much more than just turning water into wine. He healed his knees, gave him a talking flower, and gave him an understanding of the universe that would have taken several college degrees to obtain. If something like that happened, than yes. As I said, I agree with that whole video, not just one piece, including the ending. The ending is the most important part in my opinion.


Ok, so answer my question, why is it that turning water in to wine, talking flowers and all that stuff described in the video can be labeled as "magic" and life coming from none life doesn't?

what you have to do is provide a definition of magic that would include turning water in to wine, talking flowers etc. and exclude life coming form none life.



for me things are very simple, any event that contradicts known scientific laws would be likely to be caused by "magic" or at least an intelligent designer, but that is just me and my labels, you don't have to agree.


what I what to know is what objective criteria would you suggest to determine is some event should be labeled as "magic"
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:43 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Visaki wrote:I'm wondering, LEROY; What attributes commonly defined to be "life" goes your God posses? Or maybe more importantly, which ones does he lack?




God is not life, at least not according to the definition of life that we are using in this tread
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:45 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1260Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Visaki wrote:I'm wondering, LEROY; What attributes commonly defined to be "life" goes your God posses? Or maybe more importantly, which ones does he lack?

God is not life, at least not according to the definition of life that we are using in this tread

Then it is not true that if God created life, that life always comes from life. At some point, whether there is a God or whether that God created life or not, life would have to by some way arise from non-life.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:52 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:Then it is not true that if God created life, that life always comes from life. At some point, whether there is a God or whether that God created life or not, life would have to by some way arise from non-life.



Oops! Ssshhhhh Rumraket - you might make someone's brain explode.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:43 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:Then it is not true that if God created life, that life always comes from life. At some point, whether there is a God or whether that God created life or not, life would have to by some way arise from non-life.


that si not the point,


we all agree that life came form none life, (unless you deny premise 2 in the KCA) The question si>

was this event caused my a natural mechanism or by intelligent design?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:57 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: 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:[
Frank did so much more than just turning water into wine. He healed his knees, gave him a talking flower, and gave him an understanding of the universe that would have taken several college degrees to obtain. If something like that happened, than yes. As I said, I agree with that whole video, not just one piece, including the ending. The ending is the most important part in my opinion.


Ok, so answer my question, why is it that turning water in to wine, talking flowers and all that stuff described in the video can be labeled as "magic" and life coming from none life doesn't?


That depends on how one thinks it happened. A deity speaking life into existence or modern life arising spontaneously generating from preexisting matter appears to be magic because neither one of those have a natural explanation. Modern hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis are attempting to explain the origin of life through natural mechanism.

leroy wrote:what you have to do is provide a definition of magic that would include turning water in to wine, talking flowers etc. and exclude life coming form none life.


Why do I have to do that? You are the one that is claiming that magic did it. Since you are the one arguing for magic, you define it.

leroy wrote:for me things are very simple, any event that contradicts known scientific laws would be likely to be caused by "magic" or at least an intelligent designer, but that is just me and my labels, you don't have to agree.


Than why do you think our modern understanding of abiogenesis counts as magic?

Dragan Glas wrote:It's called the laws of chemistry, leroy.

Biochemistry - "the chemistry of life" - is a sub-set of chemistry: it is the chemistry of carbon.

The transition from inorganic to organic chemistry occurs when one atom of hydrogen, and one atom of carbon, form a chemical bond called the hydro-carbon bond.

At which point you're at the foot of the mountain that leads to the first cell.

Life - abiogenesis - occurs somewhere on the path up the mountain.

It's that simple.


Where is the contradiction for there to need magic?

leroy wrote:what I what to know is what objective criteria would you suggest to determine is some event should be labeled as "magic"


I think you have a fair definition above (e.g. "... any event that contradicts known scientific laws..."). I guess we must wait for you to present one, however.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:16 pm
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Well.. that was easier than expected. Why are we talking about this still then?
Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:51 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

I think you have a fair definition above (e.g. "... any event that contradicts known scientific laws..."). I guess we must wait for you to present one, however.

.



o so lets use that definition.



he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Than why do you think our modern understanding of abiogenesis counts as magic?


because we have the law of biogenesis (which is just the second law of thermodynamics with a costume)

abiogenesis requires a system of organic molecules with high entropy to "evolve" in to a system with low entropy.


Dragan Glas wrote:
It's called the laws of chemistry, leroy.

Biochemistry - "the chemistry of life" - is a sub-set of chemistry: it is the chemistry of carbon.

The transition from inorganic to organic chemistry occurs when one atom of hydrogen, and one atom of carbon, form a chemical bond called the hydro-carbon bond.

At which point you're at the foot of the mountain that leads to the first cell.

Life - abiogenesis - occurs somewhere on the path up the mountain.

It's that simple.


Where is the contradiction for there to need magic?


the contradiction is that at some point you will require a system with high entropy to evolve in to a system with low entropy. the same would be true if you what to turn water in to wine.

in your house there are probably "grape cells" and "alcohol molecules" in the atmosphere but they are in a state of high entropy, it would be extremely unlikely for those molecules to come together in a specific point, become liquid and fall exactly where your cup of water is (low entropy) given that this event would be extremely unlikely design (or magic) would be better explanations.

the same si true with abiogenesis, I can grant that you can have an organic soup, made out of all the organic molecules needed for life, but these molecules would be in a state of high entropy, to say that these molecules organized in the order required to produce life or self replicating agents (low entropy) simple contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. this would also count as magic based on the definition that we agreed.

this problem can easily be solved by postulating the exístanse of a designer, an intelligent designer can easily manipulate the system move and organize organic molecules in the correct order and create self replicating agents (life) we know that intelligent designers can create low entropy from high entropy. And we know that intelligent designers are at least possible.

That depends on how one thinks it happened. A deity speaking life into existence or modern life arising spontaneously generating from preexisting matter appears to be magic because neither one of those have a natural explanation


abiogenesis doesn't have a natural explanation ether and it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, that is my justification for calling it magic.


so what is you r justification for not calling abiogenesis magic?

. Modern hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis are attempting to explain the origin of life through natural mechanism
.

these hypothesis explain at most, how did the building blocks of life appeared, but none of this theories explain why did the building blocks decided to organice themselves in to a system of low entropy,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:04 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Even after being educated, 'we' still don't know what the word law means in science.

It's always the problem with hubris - the unwillingness to correct one's errors due to thinking that one doesn't make errors.

A limited comprehension produces statements of little to no value.

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of ... law-605643

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. Scientific laws imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.


https://www.livescience.com/21457-what- ... c-law.html

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.

...

Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though.

...

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

...

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.


https://ncse.com/library-resource/defin ... tific-work

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.


Every time our resident chump ignores these incontrovertible facts which genetically demolish any and all statements he makes concerning laws, I would say everyone should simply keep repeating it until he acknowledges his error. There can be no discussion when the real world is perverted for the sake of propping up bollocks arguments.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:23 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I think you have a fair definition above (e.g. "... any event that contradicts known scientific laws..."). I guess we must wait for you to present one, however.


I think it would be a very bad idea to follow him down this rabbit hole he dug, because there's only bullshit down there.

Laws can be 'contradicted' by events all the time, just not by events in exactly identical specific circumstances.

Laws are purely descriptive - they are not platonic qualities hanging in created space, but very human descriptions of what has been observed.

Typically, science-denying fundies like our resident troll here, equivocate between laws and forces, pretending that the former are incontrovertible when they're really nothing more than human-made diagrams framed with words. They are the map, not remotely the terrain.

In reality, biogenesis is not a scientific law at all; it's an observation that contradicted what was an opinion held by some people going all the way back to ancient Greece - that complex living organisms could spring from material associated with them. For example, that shit would produce flies, or flour produce weevils.

As such, even if it were an actual scientific law, then our resident science-deniers have elided the rather important definitional notion of complex life, so even assuming the stupid claim made by this thread title were true (rather than just bullshit asserted as true), then the law would read 'complex life comes only from living organisms via reproduction', and as such wouldn't have the precursors of life in its purview - the chemical origin of life however many billions of years ago would not have operated under identical circumstances as life today.

It's bullshit stacked on bullshit stacked on bullshit, with both ignorance and hubris motivating it all.

For example, where's the citation about this alleged 'law' of biogenesis? Are we allowing the scientifically illiterate science-deniers to dictate what is or isn't science? I don't think so.

I say give not an inch, but rather keep providing the facts which our science-denying chap has to ignore. It's clear he can't/won't learn - but at least everyone can see the lengths of wilful ignorance he has to go to in order to prop up his farcical contentions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:34 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I think you have a fair definition above (e.g. "... any event that contradicts known scientific laws..."). I guess we must wait for you to present one, however.


I think it would be a very bad idea to follow him down this rabbit hole he dug, because there's only bullshit down there.


Do not worry. We are not going that far. Beyond that, given this simple definition and the example he keep using (turning water into wine assumingly the same way Jesus did in the Bible), it will not take much to show him his mistake. The real question is if he will accept it.

Sparhafoc wrote:For example, where's the citation about this alleged 'law' of biogenesis? Are we allowing the scientifically illiterate science-deniers to dictate what is or isn't science? I don't think so.


I am only responding to dandan/leroy once a day per thread, but this is something I did miss from my reply (you covered a lot of what I already wrote). However, it would also be nice to get a citation for this claim. The source I used in my forthcoming response is a reference to just biogenesis, and does not say Law in it. I did take that for granted.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:25 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:Laws are purely descriptive - they are not platonic qualities hanging in created space, but very human descriptions of what has been observed.


honestly where do you get all this BS.

laws are more than just representations of what we observe, there are mathematical and physical reason for why we can not brake the laws,

when we say that no matter can travel faster than the speed of light, it is not because our observations say so, but rather because there is a principle that makes this impossible.



.

As such, even if it were an actual scientific law, then our resident science-deniers have elided the rather important definitional notion of complex life, so even assuming the stupid claim made by this thread title were true (rather than just bullshit asserted as true), then the law would read 'complex life comes only from living organisms via reproduction', and as such wouldn't have the precursors of life in its purview - the chemical origin of life however many billions of years ago would not have operated under identical circumstances as life today.


ok I agree with that new approach

then the law would read 'complex life comes only from living organisms via reproduction'


I would argue that life is necessarily complex, if we define life > as any organic thing that can reproduce I would argue that reproductive system are necessarily complex.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:39 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:Even after being educated, 'we' still don't know what the word law means in science.

It's always the problem with hubris - the unwillingness to correct one's errors due to thinking that one doesn't make errors.

A limited comprehension produces statements of little to no value.

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of ... law-605643

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. Scientific laws imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.


https://www.livescience.com/21457-what- ... c-law.html

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.

...

Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though.

...

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

...

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.


https://ncse.com/library-resource/defin ... tific-work

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.


Every time our resident chump ignores these incontrovertible facts which genetically demolish any and all statements he makes concerning laws, I would say everyone should simply keep repeating it until he acknowledges his error. There can be no discussion when the real world is perverted for the sake of propping up bollocks arguments.



so If my current view contradicts a law, I can simply ignore the law, because laws are descriptive :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Imagine what would happen if science operates under that principle.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am only responding to dandan/leroy once a day per thread,...


Perfectly understandable - there is an endless list of more productive and entertaining things to do, such as watching some paint to see if it happens to be drying. After his last bout of lying, I blocked him. I've met some underhanded cunts in my time, but LEROY takes the biscuit.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:but this is something I did miss from my reply (you covered a lot of what I already wrote). However, it would also be nice to get a citation for this claim. The source I used in my forthcoming response is a reference to just biogenesis, and does not say Law in it. I did take that for granted.


I've never seen any science curriculum or legitimate textbook refer to a 'law' of biogenesis. If we look at the historical event, Pasteur conducted a series of experiments and wrote a bunch of essays, and summarized the principle of his observations as the statement 'omne vivum ex vivo' as a falsification of the notion of spontaneous generation, not as a scientific law.

Amusingly, typing in 'law of biogenesis' into Google nets top citations only from Creationist institutes. This is exactly how Creationism works - perverting discourse through echo chambers, misrepresenting science so that they can attack those misrepresentations and gull undereducated fools like LEROY into believing bullshit that protects the other bullshit they already believe. Unsurprisingly, all those Creationist sources employ this supposed law as a contradiction to evolution, i.e. exactly as our resident copy and paste creationists.

Regardless, even were there such a law, as I've already explained to the clueless fapper above, a law in science is not prescriptive - it cannot be... whereas what it describes is specifically limited to a particular circumstance. Change the circumstances of the observation, and the law is no longer relevant.

As such, I forward this as a case of all-too-typical Creationist misinformation where bullshit is stacked on top of bullshit, like a Russian Doll full of bollocks.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:38 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:[
I've never seen any science curriculum or legitimate textbook refer to a 'law' of biogenesis.


well have you heard about the second law of thermodynamics ? to say that life can not come form none life is more than just an observation, in order to have life from a chemical soup you need low entropy form high entropy


.
Regardless, even were there such a law, as I've already explained to the clueless fapper above, a law in science is not prescriptive - it cannot be... whereas what it describes is specifically limited to a particular circumstance. Change the circumstances of the observation, and the law is no longer relevant
.

well in that case you have the burden proof you have to show that the law of biogenesis doesn't apply under a given ser of realistic circumstances

the law of biogenesis is just the second law of thermodynamics with a costume, and an example of a realistic circumstance that would cause a violation of the second law, is an intelligent designer of some sort (maybe a God, maybe an alien, maybe a robot, etc.)


do you have any other suggestion of any other circumstance that would be more realistic than a designer ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:21 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: 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:[

I think you have a fair definition above (e.g. "... any event that contradicts known scientific laws..."). I guess we must wait for you to present one, however.

.



o so lets use that definition.


Okay.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Than why do you think our modern understanding of abiogenesis counts as magic?


because we have the law of biogenesis (which is just the second law of thermodynamics with a costume)

abiogenesis requires a system of organic molecules with high entropy to "evolve" in to a system with low entropy.


Wikipedia - Biogenesis wrote:Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life." A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells [are] from cells;" this conclusion is one of the central statements of cell theory.

[emphasis added]


Who is claiming that complex living things came about from abiogenesis? Not I, nor anyone in that field. Stop equivocating. Oh, and as Sparhafoc as already asked, please cite a source for your Law of biogenesis.

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
It's called the laws of chemistry, leroy.

Biochemistry - "the chemistry of life" - is a sub-set of chemistry: it is the chemistry of carbon.

The transition from inorganic to organic chemistry occurs when one atom of hydrogen, and one atom of carbon, form a chemical bond called the hydro-carbon bond.

At which point you're at the foot of the mountain that leads to the first cell.

Life - abiogenesis - occurs somewhere on the path up the mountain.

It's that simple.


Where is the contradiction for there to need magic?


the contradiction is that at some point you will require a system with high entropy to evolve in to a system with low entropy. the same would be true if you what to turn water in to wine.


Define entropy. This should be fun.

leroy wrote:in your house there are probably "grape cells" and "alcohol molecules" in the atmosphere but they are in a state of high entropy, it would be extremely unlikely for those molecules to come together in a specific point, become liquid and fall exactly where your cup of water is (low entropy) given that this event would be extremely unlikely design (or magic) would be better explanations.


What if I live at a vineyard?

leroy wrote:the same si true with abiogenesis, I can grant that you can have an organic soup, made out of all the organic molecules needed for life, but these molecules would be in a state of high entropy, to say that these molecules organized in the order required to produce life or self replicating agents (low entropy) simple contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. this would also count as magic based on the definition that we agreed.


Define entropy in this context. Without that, you are holding an empty bag.

leroy wrote:this problem can easily be solved by postulating the exístanse of a designer, an intelligent designer can easily manipulate the system move and organize organic molecules in the correct order and create self replicating agents (life) we know that intelligent designers can create low entropy from high entropy. And we know that intelligent designers are at least possible.


Yes, of course magic can explain it. Magic can explain anything. I am not sure why you think your waxing poetic about magic being a solution means anything without first showing that magic is possible.

leroy wrote:
That depends on how one thinks it happened. A deity speaking life into existence or modern life arising spontaneously generating from preexisting matter appears to be magic because neither one of those have a natural explanation


abiogenesis doesn't have a natural explanation ether and it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, that is my justification for calling it magic.


Incorrect. As I have already pointed out, Our modern hypotheses for abiogenesis fall well within our modern understanding of chemistry and biochemistry. Beyond that, until you define how you are using entropy in this context, anything you say about it is moot.

leroy wrote:so what is you r justification for not calling abiogenesis magic?


The fact that our modern understanding of it falls well within chemistry and biochemistry, as I have stated several times now. Perhaps if you read for comprehension instead of gleaning, you would not have to repeat questions already asked.

leroy wrote:
. Modern hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis are attempting to explain the origin of life through natural mechanism
.

these hypothesis explain at most, how did the building blocks of life appeared, but none of this theories explain why did the building blocks decided to organice themselves in to a system of low entropy,


Decided? Why would they decide this? Do mountain ranges decide to rise? Do rivers decide to flow down stream? Does rust decide to form when iron is exposed to oxygen? I think this statement exposes a lot about how you see the world. Chemicals react with each other when they come into contact, no decision is made.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:39 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Even more amusingly pointed emphasis added:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction.


The Scientific Law of Belief in Biogenesis?

Methinks the trolls have some 'splaining to do.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:43 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

viewtopic.php?p=182161#p182161

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:and the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally doesn't have a burden proof?



Evidence has already been cited meeting that burden.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=182077

Sparhafoc wrote:Now, as for evidence, we have to go back to the shell game.

This thread had to be split off of a discussion thread based on studies in chemical abiogenesis because LEROY couldn't stay on topic.

As such, some of the evidence was presented in that very thread this one was split from.

So shall we play the Shell Game boys and girls?

viewtopic.php?p=177121#p177121

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500179
The ribosome as a missing link in the evolution of life


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953650
The ribosome as a missing link in prebiotic evolution II: Ribosomes encode ribosomal proteins that bind to common regions of their own mRNAs and rRNAs.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088142
Functional Class I and II Amino Acid-activating Enzymes Can Be Coded by Opposite Strands of the Same Gene.


And there's evidence.

Are you going to address that evidence, LEROY?

Or are you going to try to obfuscate for 4 or 5 pages, then pretend that no one cited that evidence, LEROY?




If you refuse to read that evidence, you are disallowed from claiming that evidence hasn't been cited.




Creationist response to extensive scientific experimentation....

But, but, but... it's MAGIC!

Image
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:48 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:




Define entropy. This should be fun.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

once again you what to dance with semantics.


In statistical mechanics, 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

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... -the-fall/


if you don't like this this definition please provide an other definition of entropy aplicable in statistical thermodynamics.



a small test to see if you understand entropy


what has more entropy

1 My name is John

2 kjhkfhkdsksf zozandkjzh fiuw pnKSFBSLKBDK SCF.


1 or 2?






.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:21 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Sparhafoc wrote:hBut, but, but... it's MAGIC!

Image



you are the one who is saying that laws can be denied if you don't like them or if they contradict your view..........If I would have known you a few years ago I would still be a YEC, because any scientific law or principle that points to an old can simply be ignored without justification becase laws are descriptive


For example by your logic, any creationist could say that the speed of light was millions of times faster 200 years ago, that would solve the starlight problem.

If you argue that it is impossible because there is a law that limits the speed of light at 299 792 458 m s one could simply reply with your laws are descriptive BS
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:28 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests