Jump to content


Photo

Two Giant Stop Signs Against Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
160 replies to this topic

#41 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:39 PM

You haven't addressed the points I made. That's what I mean by declaring victory. Instead of looking honestly at what has been done, you demand to see evidence of what hasn't been done yet. That isn't the way a sincere quest for knowledge works.


You are one stubborn fellow.

"...by declaring victory". Those are your words not mine you dishonest person.

The issue is why should I carry on a pointless discussion with a skeptic who has absolutely no case and no evidence to even establish a case?

I challenged you and the other skeptics here to produce direct evidence that nature can (1) create matter...but what do I get in reply? Nothing...Oh, beg pardon: one of your comrades in unbelief came up with the 'virtual particle'. Whoopee. As if the whole universe were made of mysterious particles that appear and vanish in less than a nanosecond. Right.

So why should I continue to debate with a person who cannot demonstrate that (2) nature develops life from non-living matter...from any observed source?

No, I am not claiming victory. I am merely moving on to other posters to see if they can do any better than you have. So far, no one has.

Bye.

#42 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:47 PM

I challenged you and the other skeptics here to produce direct evidence that nature can (1) create matter...but what do I get in reply?


You handwaved the replies.

So why should I continue to debate with a person who cannot demonstrate that (2) nature develops life from non-living matter...from any observed source?


I asked you to demonstrate a barrier that could prevent such a thing from happening. If you could, you'd be a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize in chemstry.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#43 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:00 PM

You handwaved the replies.


You are lying again and anyone who reads the many documentations I posted on this thread can see for themselves. I am going to leave you behind on this matter.

I asked you to demonstrate a barrier that could prevent such a thing from happening. If you could, you'd be a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize in chemstry.


The First Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Biogenesis.

Now when you can show us by observed example that either of those two laws have been overthrown then post it as a topic here on EFF. Also, for the other readers...tell them when the Law of Biogenesis 'became' law. Give the date and circumstances.

Adios. I am going to read others now.

#44 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:15 PM

The First Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Biogenesis.

Now when you can show us by observed example that either of those two laws have been overthrown then post it as a topic here on EFF.


You're avoiding the question. How, specifically, does either of those laws prevent simple molecules from combining into more complex molecules? What is the mechanism? Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water without violating thermodynamics. Where's the limit to complexity? Be specific.

#45 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:19 PM

Anyone else?

#46 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:10 PM

Says who? Demonstrate it by observed example.

Says the first law of thermodynamics. The whole point of any conservation law (whether its mass, energy, momentum, charge, etc.) is that as long as the conserved quantity is conserved, there's no violation of the conservation law. Pair production is a observable example of conserved properties being conserved by production of positive and negative values. If a photon decays into a positron and an electron, charge is conserved because the positive charge of one particle is balanced by the negative charge of the other. The same principle applies to any and all conservation laws. There's no violation of the 1st law if there's no change in the total amount of matter/energy.


Sure: the energy in your hands to type your post was potential energy. The moment you reached for your keyboard it became kinetic energy...and now it is at rest(conserved). The energy you used is now in disorder and cannot be used again. To perform more work you must draw once more from the source of energy in your body (the nutrients supplied by food). Magnify this to the total amount of energy in the universe. There is 'x' amount. With each passing moment there is less energy in our world/universe. That tells us that there was a time when all the energy that has ever been burned had an origin...of total availability. That time of 'total availability' was the beginning; the beginning of God's creation. Since it is all slowly burning off we know that it will have an ultimate 'heat death' and there will be no more heat nor molecular motion and the entire universe will come to a complete standstill and the temp will be 473 degrees below zero F. However, all that exists now will exist then because matter is never destroyed. It only becomes useless once it is burned by work.

Now, please create 'zero energy' and then make something physical out of it.

That's both incorrect and not even remotely related to the universe having zero total energy. Work is possible when there is a energy differential. If space expands faster than the matter/energy it contains then there is a energy differential between the empty space and the non-empty space. Entropy constantly increasing does not mean that there was a point of total availability of energy. I provided an example before of how the universe could initially be at maximum entropy (no available energy for work) and via expansion create the energy differential needed for work to be possible.
However this is completely different from the idea that gravitational potential energy balances out positive mass/energy in the universe which you have yet to address.

Virtual particles are examples of something physical (mass) coming from zero energy (vacuum).

#47 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:17 PM

Says the first law of thermodynamics. The whole point of any conservation law (whether its mass, energy, momentum, charge, etc.) is that as long as the conserved quantity is conserved, there's no violation of the conservation law. Pair production is a observable example of conserved properties being conserved by production of positive and negative values. If a photon decays into a positron and an electron, charge is conserved because the positive charge of one particle is balanced by the negative charge of the other. The same principle applies to any and all conservation laws. There's no violation of the 1st law if there's no change in the total amount of matter/energy.


You are adept at missing the point...deliberately. Of course the law of conservation is true and energy used is work done...but once used it is no longer available for work. That means that there was a time when all of the energy that has ever been burned was available at the same time and hence there was a beginning/origin of the universe. But we are talking about the inability of nature to create matter...which is why the 1st Law became a LAW in the first place. So why can't you grasp that, skeptic?

That's both incorrect and not even remotely related to the universe having zero total energy.


That is total baloney. Their theory is wrong. Energy in the universe is burned every single moment of every day and if the Lord tarries it could potentially end in a heat death...which was my point in reply to this matter. You are living in a dream world of concepts and theories that have no relevance on the real world.

Work is possible when there is a energy differential. If space expands faster than the matter/energy it contains then there is a energy differential between the empty space and the non-empty space. Entropy constantly increasing does not mean that there was a point of total availability of energy. I provided an example before of how the universe could initially be at maximum entropy (no available energy for work) and via expansion create the energy differential needed for work to be possible.
However this is completely different from the idea that gravitational potential energy balances out positive mass/energy in the universe which you have yet to address.


No. You address the origin of gravity/gravitational pull in the first place. Don't put the cart before the horse...which is exactly what you're attempting to do. Since the visible, physical reality before us is not made of 'virtual particles' then the onus is on you to explain how it all exists despite the 1st Law. You are still equivocating on this issue. If you aren't honest enough to admit that nature cannot create itself because of the barrier of the 1st Law then what other possiblity is there other than a supernatural creation?

Virtual particles are examples of something physical (mass) coming from zero energy (vacuum).


Then you are going to have to deal with your evolutionary comrades who differ with you on this point because they disagree. I quoted them...remember?

And just what do you think can be done with 'virtual particles' as it relates to the visible physical world we see before us? Your comrades tell us "Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles." Our universe is not made up of such mysterious particles and we don't yet fully grasp what they are. Those particles last less than a nanosecond...so how do they help you establish your case for our present physical world...of which all things physical remain in visible or constant measurable existence?

Again, you deliberately ignored the facts I gave you. Why do you think they are referred to as 'virtual'?

Defintion: Virtual: 'being in essence or in effect though not formally recognized or admitted'.

I am not going to tell you a third time. Is that clear?

You take this ridiculous position because, like your companions in unbelief, you are not honest enough to admit that our highly complex universe and the even more highly complex living organisms of our world demands creation by an intelligent Engineer with a mind that is above all minds.

You don't believe God did it; you think that nature did it...all that vast complexity of both the atomic and biological world...by itself...blindly. What absolute idiocy.

#48 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:54 PM

You are adept at missing the point...deliberately. Of course the law of conservation is true and energy used is work done...but once used it is no longer available for work. That means that there was a time when all of the energy that has ever been burned was available at the same time and hence there was a beginning/origin of the universe. But we are talking about the inability of nature to create matter...which is why the 1st Law became a LAW in the first place. So why can't you grasp that, skeptic?

That is total baloney. Their theory is wrong. Energy in the universe is burned every single moment of every day and if the Lord tarries it could potentially end in a heat death...which was my point in reply to this matter. You are living in a dream world of concepts and theories that have no relevance on the real world.

The energy that you are talking about is only part of the total energy budget of the universe. There's also a negative component from the gravitational potential energy. Saying that energy is used every day doesn't change the fact that (positive energy used everyday) + (negative energy of gravity) = 0.

No. You address the origin of gravity/gravitational pull in the first place. Don't put the cart before the horse...which is exactly what you're attempting to do. Since the visible, physical reality before us is not made of 'virtual particles' then the onus is on you to explain how it all exists despite the 1st Law. You are still equivocating on this issue. If you aren't honest enough to admit that nature cannot create itself because of the barrier of the 1st Law then what other possiblity is there other than a supernatural creation?

The 1st law doesn't prohibit a change from zero energy to zero energy expressed as negative and positive energy. There's nothing in the 1st law that needs to be overcome.

Then you are going to have to deal with your evolutionary comrades who differ with you on this point because they disagree. I quoted them...remember?

And just what do you think can be done with 'virtual particles' as it relates to the visible physical world we see before us? Your comrades tell us "Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles." Our universe is not made up of such mysterious particles and we don't yet fully grasp what they are. Those particles last less than a nanosecond...so how do they help you establish your case for our present physical world...of which all things physical remain in visible or constant measurable existence?

Here's the other part you quoted as well
"The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass"
I'm not seeing where this contradicts my statement that virtual particles are examples of mass that occurs from nothing (vacuum). Their duration is simply a result of the uncertainty principle, where the duration depends on the mass involved. If there's no mass then there's no limit to the duration. For the universe with a total mass/energy budget of zero it can continue on indefinitely.

Again, you deliberately ignored the facts I gave you. Why do you think they are referred to as 'virtual'?

Defintion: Virtual: 'being in essence or in effect though not formally recognized or admitted'.

You should use the physics definition of virtual. Terms in physics can have their own definitions.
http://dictionary.re.../browse/virtual
physics See also exchange force designating or relating to a particle exchanged between other particles that are interacting by a field of force: a virtual photon

I am not going to tell you a third time. Is that clear?

Very well, I'll let this topic drop, you are clearly not willing to accept that physics provides answers to your questions about the 1st law.

#49 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:23 AM

The energy that you are talking about is only part of the total energy budget of the universe. There's also a negative component from the gravitational potential energy. Saying that energy is used every day doesn't change the fact that (positive energy used everyday) + (negative energy of gravity) = 0.

We aren't talking about the 'total energy of the universe'. We are talking about the complete inability of nature to create itself. But you still missed my point! My point was/is that with the burning of energy each and every moment of time....that fact demands that at one time in the past ALL the energy that was ever burned was available; like a gasoline tank on a car that has just been filled. It holds 'x' amount when full and cannot be more full. That means there was an origin...and that the 1st law being what it is, would not permit the creation of matter by natural processes. But you don't get this because of your twisted, perverted thinking that somehow something came from nothing..............anyway. You can't demonstrate it, observe it, nor prove it, but you believe in it anyway and you expect us to be dumb enough to believe it also. We don't. We won't. We can't because it makes no scientific sense and it defies logic.

The 1st law doesn't prohibit a change from zero energy to zero energy expressed as negative and positive energy. There's nothing in the 1st law that needs to be overcome.

You can play with your pet theory all you want to but you CANNOT demonstrate that our universe can make matter. Period. I told you skeptics to explain the very origin of gravity in the first place, but you failed in that also. Utter fail. My point here: if your pet 'theory' were true it would require an origin for gravity as well...but you don't have the foggiest notion or even curiosity as to where or how gravitational pull came from. The truth is that since you have rejected your Creator and His written account as to the creation by His Almighty power and wisdom, you don't know diddly squat about origins. You're guessing.

Here's the other part you quoted as well "The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass"

Really? Then catch one of those virtual blips if you can and turn it into something visible; something lasting; something that continues in it's existence like real matter.(their words). Until then you have no argument. We don't know what those virtual particles are nor even why they appear and vanish in less than a nano-second. I am distressed by your mealy-mouth stretching of something that we still do not know about with any degree of certainty. That's why they call it 'the uncertainty principle'. Quote: "...a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental lower bound on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known." (Wikipedia) Yet you and your sinful companions wish to base your entire science of origins based on a tiny virtual blip that is little more than a mathematical anomaly; very little more.

I'm not seeing where this contradicts my statement that virtual particles are examples of mass that occurs from nothing (vacuum). Their duration is simply a result of the uncertainty principle, where the duration depends on the mass involved. If there's no mass then there's no limit to the duration. For the universe with a total mass/energy budget of zero it can continue on indefinitely.

If they are real mass, then why do they vanish in less than a nanosecond?

You should use the physics definition of virtual. Terms in physics can have their own definitions. http://dictionary.re.../browse/virtual physics See also exchange force designating or relating to a particle exchanged between other particles that are interacting by a field of force: a virtual photon

Definitions by humans who sometimes make mistakes. You have made a very, very big mistake.

Very well, I'll let this topic drop, you are clearly not willing to accept that physics provides answers to your questions about the 1st law.

Then I trust you won't reply and let others try where you have so miserably failed. And you are not willing to admit that nature CANNOT create itself according to the law. Why do you think it was recognized as a law in the first place? You won't believe the written, historical account that God gave us through Moses but you believe in something you have never seen, cannot observe, nor reproduce. That makes you a fool. "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god'. Psalm 14:1

So cling to your little blip. But that will probably cost you your eternal soul.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:30 PM

You're avoiding the question. How, specifically, does either of those laws prevent simple molecules from combining into more complex molecules? What is the mechanism? Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water without violating thermodynamics. Where's the limit to complexity? Be specific.


That isn't what is being asked here, hence YOU are side stepping the question, furthermore this is merely a red herring.

What (I think) was asked was that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally therefore a naturalists view of the creation of the universe would break this law... (which defies the naturalists worldview since they believe solely in natural laws, hence it is a self-contradicting worldview)

It was also asked that the law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life naturally... ie- we do not see a table run around as if alive. Hence how does the naturalist propose life arose by not breaking this law? (Abiogenesis hasn't been verified, defies this law which means it is another self-contradicting statement by a naturalist).



The fact that there is no evidence to the contrary IS what is being asked since the evolutionist / naturalist state claims that defy these two laws, hence Calypsis is asking for the evidence by which you make these claims. If there is no evidence for how these laws can be broken to allow the creation of the universe naturally and the creation of like from nothing naturally then can you at least admit that by having NO evidence, (as you admitted), that those claims are not science, nor are they logical since they defy established scientific LAWS.

#51 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:01 PM

That isn't what is being asked here, hence YOU are side stepping the question, furthermore this is merely a red herring.

What (I think) was asked was that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally therefore a naturalists view of the creation of the universe would break this law... (which defies the naturalists worldview since they believe solely in natural laws, hence it is a self-contradicting worldview)

It was also asked that the law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life naturally... ie- we do not see a table run around as if alive. Hence how does the naturalist propose life arose by not breaking this law? (Abiogenesis hasn't been verified, defies this law which means it is another self-contradicting statement by a naturalist).



The fact that there is no evidence to the contrary IS what is being asked since the evolutionist / naturalist state claims that defy these two laws, hence Calypsis is asking for the evidence by which you make these claims. If there is no evidence for how these laws can be broken to allow the creation of the universe naturally and the creation of like from nothing naturally then can you at least admit that by having NO evidence, (as you admitted), that those claims are not science, nor are they logical since they defy established scientific LAWS.


Right, Gilbo. But look at what the skeptics have said on this thread!

"We agree the 1st Law has not been violated and matter is not created"

then...

"Virtual particles prove that matter/mass has been created."

It's a total contradiction of ideas. Nonetheless, they gave up quicker than most evolutionists I've debated on this issue. But I'm telling you their thinking is almost totally Orwellian. In that story the totalitarian Obrien said to the fallen hero Winston: "You do not exist." Really? Then to whom was he talking? One has to be subject to some pretty serious mental conditioning to accept two lines of thought that are totally contradictory but that is exactly what our opponents revealed in this discussion.

Best wishes.

#52 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:29 PM

Right, Gilbo. But look at what the skeptics have said on this thread!

"We agree the 1st Law has not been violated and matter is not created"

then...

"Virtual particles prove that matter/mass has been created."

It's a total contradiction of ideas. Nonetheless, they gave up quicker than most evolutionists I've debated on this issue. But I'm telling you their thinking is almost totally Orwellian. In that story the totalitarian Obrien said to the fallen hero Winston: "You do not exist." Really? Then to whom was he talking? One has to be subject to some pretty serious mental conditioning to accept two lines of thought that are totally contradictory but that is exactly what our opponents revealed in this discussion.

Best wishes.


Exactly! I'd propose that the mental conditioning is the indoctrination that begins during primary school.

However what is most ironic is that the same people who propose these contradictory claims are also those who proclaim their own superiority and are quick to claim that they are smarter than anyone else, (almost solely on the basis on what they believe... as if changing worldviews is linking to increasing IQ...). This isn't applicable to all people, however it is a running theme that is occurring now days, especially with the new atheist crowd.

#53 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 27 June 2012 - 09:27 AM

What (I think) was asked was that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally therefore a naturalists view of the creation of the universe would break this law... (which defies the naturalists worldview since they believe solely in natural laws, hence it is a self-contradicting worldview)


My response, which you quoted, was addressed to the second "stop sign" involving abiogenesis. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The other issue is being handled well by miles, so I'm leaving that one to him.

It was also asked that the law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from life naturally... ie- we do not see a table run around as if alive. Hence how does the naturalist propose life arose by not breaking this law? (Abiogenesis hasn't been verified, defies this law which means it is another self-contradicting statement by a naturalist).


Put simply, modern chemistry considers the "Law of Biogenesis" (at least as you interpret it) to be wrong. Abiogenesis hasn't been done in the lab yet but there's no chemical reason to think it won't be done. Hence my analogy to the Wright brothers. It isn't a question of having "no" evidence. It's a question of not having a complete working aircraft today. We expect to have one soon.

What the so-called "stop sign" seems to be demanding is evidence of something that hasn't happened yet. My response, until that evidence is available, is to ask why you think it's impossible. Please be specific. Show the mechanism of the barrier that prevents non-living chemicals from forming naturally into living organisms.

#54 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 June 2012 - 03:26 PM

Gilbo, I'll let you answer him but know this: The Law of Biogenesis is a law precisely because it has never been overthrown by any obervable science. There isn't any form of life, no matter how simple, that nature can generate from non-living matter. He fails to remember that it was Darwin's bull dog, Huxley who coined the phrase and was the first of their ilk to identify it as a law.

'Abiogenesis hasn't been done in the lab yet...'

And it never will. The best they have ever done was Shostak's little lipid bubble with a bit of chromatin inside. Whoopee.

They would have more hope in seeing an 85 hsp Mercury outboard motor to fall out of the sky... working part by working part, in perfect working order, with the power switch 'on' before they will ever generate life in the lab; much less will they ever see nature do it of it's own accord.

Realize also that their 'proof' must NOT be intelligently engineered. It has to occur naturally; without their dirty fingers on the steering wheel. Need I explain why?(wink)

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2012 - 06:48 PM

My response, which you quoted, was addressed to the second "stop sign" involving abiogenesis. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The other issue is being handled well by miles, so I'm leaving that one to him.



Put simply, modern chemistry considers the "Law of Biogenesis" (at least as you interpret it) to be wrong. Abiogenesis hasn't been done in the lab yet but there's no chemical reason to think it won't be done. Hence my analogy to the Wright brothers. It isn't a question of having "no" evidence. It's a question of not having a complete working aircraft today. We expect to have one soon.

What the so-called "stop sign" seems to be demanding is evidence of something that hasn't happened yet. My response, until that evidence is available, is to ask why you think it's impossible. Please be specific. Show the mechanism of the barrier that prevents non-living chemicals from forming naturally into living organisms.


Serious!

As Calypsis said the Law of Biogenesis is a Law because it has never been contradicted. So you say that people believe the LAW is wrong... and what evidence supports this? (I mean actual evidence not a "so and so said X" )

OR is this stated merely because this law is in direct opposition of a naturalists worldview, (considering that to the naturalist the laws of nature are the cornerstone of their worldview then this fact emphasizes its incompatibility with reality).

The only explanation you have given literally translates to "maybe in the future it could happen". This is a case of the logical fallacy argumentum ad futuris, (argument from the future), basically it is wishful thinking stating that something could happen in the future. Here is a great summary, have a read and see how your claims are not supported by rational thought.

"B. Argumentum ad Futuris = Argument to the Future

This is the fallacy of the eternal optimist: "Accept this because
future evidence will support it." Here, since you don't have your
evidence in hand, you appeal to the future as proof of your
assertions: future research, future explorations, future discoveries,
future evidence. It appeals to the authority of progress, to hope, not
proof! It is an argument by anticipation, and speculation, not
demonstration.


-Missing links may someday be found to support evolution.

-Scientists may soon find a natural cause for the origin of
life.


-The Supercollider will tell us all about the origin of the
universe.


But, of course, no one knows the future for sure. The hoped for, yet
unknown future data supports no position in the present. Rational
decisions must be made by hard and fast evidence that is now
known. Truth is established by proper evidence, and this is a
timeless truth."


http://www3.dbu.edu/...s_relevance.pdf


Here is what I wrote on post #4 I suggest you have a re-read since it hows the only way scientists can find supporting data for abiogenesis, (creating life in a lab is not the answer since they created it, not nature / natural selection)

"Abiogenesis has come nowhere and will go nowhere... Even IF scientists manage to make life themselves, (I heard that there were people who claimed as such but they used an already existing organism as a template which is cheating), then what does that prove?... It proves that intelligence was used to create life!!

Even if scientists found a way for life to self assemble from the ground up production, (the holy grail of nanotechnology), then that proves that intelligence was used to create self-assembly systems

The only way abiogenesis can be proven is if they observed an unguided, unthinking process create life without outside intervention.. Once outside intervention is used then that infers "the hand of God" so to speak since the evolutionist claims NO outside intervention, only nature."




No the stop sign isn't demanding evidence that hasn't happened yet, (since you cannot predict that it will be found at all), it is merely pointing out a contradiction with evolutionary ideas and established verified scientific laws. Hence because there is a contradiction then you have two options,

1: the law is wrong. In order to claim this you will need to have actual evidence supporting this claim. Considering that laws are basically believed to be fact / truth in and of themselves, this is a hard task to do.

2: the premise which contradicts the law is wrong. Now this is a much simpler and justifiable reason. If something defies the way the world has been demonstrated to work then why believe in that claim? In order to support the premise, actual evidence will be needed, (not pleading for future evidence).


Here is what I wrote in post #51. It is funny that you cut this bit out since it answers what you state in your reply


"The fact that there is no evidence to the contrary IS what is being asked since the evolutionist / naturalist state claims that defy these two laws, hence Calypsis is asking for the evidence by which you make these claims. If there is no evidence for how these laws can be broken to allow the creation of the universe naturally and the creation of like from nothing naturally then can you at least admit that by having NO evidence, (as you admitted), that those claims are not science, nor are they logical since they defy established scientific LAWS."

#56 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:07 AM

So you say that people believe the LAW is wrong...


Don't misunderstand what physical laws are. They describe what we observe. They don't proscribe anything from happening. The "law" of biogenesis was based on Pasteur's and others' observations in a fairly narrow set of conditions - e.g. in wine, in milk, etc. As a "law", it is suspect because there is no evidence of a distinct difference between chemicals in non-living things and chemicals in living things.

To say that something "cannot" happen because of a limited set of observations is premature. To demonstrate that abiogenesis is "impossible", you'd have to show a tangible barrier of some sort that prevents the synthesis of larger and larger molecules from simpler contituents. Decades of chemistry have not found any evidence of such a barrier.

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:25 AM

To say that something "cannot" happen because of a limited set of observations is premature. To demonstrate that abiogenesis is "impossible", you'd have to show a tangible barrier of some sort that prevents the synthesis of larger and larger molecules from simpler contituents. Decades of chemistry have not found any evidence of such a barrier.



Decades of Chemistry haven't found a plausible model either

"But, of course, no one knows the future for sure. The hoped for, yet
unknown future data supports no position in the present. Rational
decisions must be made by hard and fast evidence that is now
known. Truth is established by proper evidence, and this is a
timeless truth."



So what will it be, will you cling to hope and believe in something before its proven, (if it ever will) or will you decide based on the current facts? There is nothing wrong with finding out, however it is when people put more faith in stories than in reality that is when it gets disturbing.


Perhaps the barrier you ask for is the 1st law since it states that the entropy of the universe is increasing... Before university I though this was just energy, however its also related to the physical states of matter. Gas particles are more chaotic than liquid, and liquids are more than solids.

#58 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 28 June 2012 - 12:33 PM

So what will it be, will you cling to hope and believe in something before its proven, (if it ever will) or will you decide based on the current facts?


How can anything ever be proven if you decide beforehand that it's impossible? Don't seek and ye shall not find.

The current facts are that there is no barrier preventing abiogenesis.

Perhaps the barrier you ask for is the 1st law since it states that the entropy of the universe is increasing... Before university I though this was just energy, however its also related to the physical states of matter. Gas particles are more chaotic than liquid, and liquids are more than solids.


You're thinking of the 2nd Law.

The first thing you should understand about thermodynamics is that the word "thermo" means heat. Entropy isn't so much about the order of "things" as it is about the distribution of heat.

There are plenty of spontaneous chemical reactions that result in increased complexity - combustion of hydrogen is a trivial example. There's no barrier to spontaneity of a reaction as long as the entropy and enthalpy combine to make a more stable energy state.

#59 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 June 2012 - 12:43 PM

How can anything ever be proven if you decide beforehand that it's impossible? Don't seek and ye shall not find.

The current facts are that there is no barrier preventing abiogenesis.



You're thinking of the 2nd Law.

The first thing you should understand about thermodynamics is that the word "thermo" means heat. Entropy isn't so much about the order of "things" as it is about the distribution of heat.

There are plenty of spontaneous chemical reactions that result in increased complexity - combustion of hydrogen is a trivial example. There's no barrier to spontaneity of a reaction as long as the entropy and enthalpy combine to make a more stable energy state.



#60 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:00 PM

How can anything ever be proven if you decide beforehand that it's impossible? Don't seek and ye shall not find. The current facts are that there is no barrier preventing abiogenesis. You're thinking of the 2nd Law. The first thing you should understand about thermodynamics is that the word "thermo" means heat. Entropy isn't so much about the order of "things" as it is about the distribution of heat. There are plenty of spontaneous chemical reactions that result in increased complexity - combustion of hydrogen is a trivial example. There's no barrier to spontaneity of a reaction as long as the entropy and enthalpy combine to make a more stable energy state.

You are the one who needs to learn something, fella. First and foremost as to the reason why well established laws of science are given the status of 'law' in the first place. You obviously haven't learned that fact or perhpas you just don't respect them. I suspect the latter. But respect them or not you are never going to see the two laws we've discussed on this thread violated ever. (1) entropy is BOTH about heat conversion and serves as the measure of disorder, by defintion. But you neo-Darwinists don't like that definition do you? There is even a conscience effort among those of your persuasion to change the 'disorder' factor because it is such a threat to evolution theory (i.e. Peter Atkins). It is pure Orwellian dialectic. (2) When you can give us observable evidence that life has generated from non-living matter get back with us. Don't hold your breath.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)