Jump to content


Photo

The Law Of Biogenesis Has Never Been Overturned


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

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 October 2012 - 08:18 AM

1. It is a LAW even though some evolutionists I have debated deny that fact.

Quote; "Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, 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 observation is one of the central statements of cell theory.
(Wikipedia)

But the pro-evolution Wikipedia has, nonetheless tried to soften the blow it delivers to any natural explanation for the origin of life by saying in the same article:

Quote: "The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and it has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, when life first arose.[4] However, the law of biogenesis is still valid today; it is a fundamental characteristic of life, as the conditions required for abiogenesis no longer exist."

'the conditions required'? What conditions? This is nothing but a healthy imagination for many scientists since Pastuer, (i.e. Miller/Urey, Jack Shostack, Orgel, etc.) have attempted to recreat those 'conditions' and yet met with failure after failure.

Beg pardon, dear readers, but Shostack lipid little bubble of water containing bits of inserted chromatin doesn't even come close.

2. Here is the reason why nature does not and cannot generate life:

Posted Image

And the evolutionists think that nature assembled all of this by random natural processes? Actually, it is not just the bacterial flagellum that is too much for them to handle...it involves what amounts to entire manufacturing regions in the living cell that they must explain. Let them show us that nature is capable of doing this.

#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

What's there present view on (a)biogenesis? I heard them trying to make attempts that there would be exceptions.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:34 PM

What's there present view on (a)biogenesis? I heard them trying to make attempts that there would be exceptions.


That is pretty much what they claim... Evolution really is anti-science since it gives these "scientists" artistic license to make up any random claim or to propose something that has no verification as have occuring.

All I ever hear is to the effect of,

"well it could have evolved"
"well evolution is a fact so it must have evolved"
"science is working on it"

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 17 October 2012 - 06:27 AM

What's there present view on (a)biogenesis? I heard them trying to make attempts that there would be exceptions.


They are promoting RNA world...the phenomenon of messenger RNA folding on itself replicating RNA. So what does it do? Nothing as far as life is concerned. It's based on a lot of wishful thinking.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#5 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:34 AM

1. It is a LAW even though some evolutionists I have debated deny that fact.

Quote; "Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, 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 observation is one of the central statements of cell theory.
(Wikipedia)

But the pro-evolution Wikipedia has, nonetheless tried to soften the blow it delivers to any natural explanation for the origin of life by saying in the same article:

Quote: "The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and it has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, when life first arose.[4] However, the law of biogenesis is still valid today; it is a fundamental characteristic of life, as the conditions required for abiogenesis no longer exist."

'the conditions required'? What conditions? This is nothing but a healthy imagination for many scientists since Pastuer, (i.e. Miller/Urey, Jack Shostack, Orgel, etc.) have attempted to recreat those 'conditions' and yet met with failure after failure.

Beg pardon, dear readers, but Shostack lipid little bubble of water containing bits of inserted chromatin doesn't even come close.

2. Here is the reason why nature does not and cannot generate life:

Posted Image

And the evolutionists think that nature assembled all of this by random natural processes? Actually, it is not just the bacterial flagellum that is too much for them to handle...it involves what amounts to entire manufacturing regions in the living cell that they must explain. Let them show us that nature is capable of doing this.

Why do they call it the Law of Biogenesis? Is it something that can never be violated like, say, the Law of Gravity?

2. The picture shows a diagram of a complicated structure from a bacteria. Why, specifically, does that support your contention that "nature does not and cannot generate life"?

Is there a complexity level above which nature cannot put together the building blocks to produce that complexity?

What are the units of measure for biological complexity. What are the units of measure for non-biological complexity? Can the two be compared?

What experiments have shown that nature cannot build complexity?

What is the maximum level of complexity that nature can build?

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:02 PM

1. Why do they call it the Law of Biogenesis? Is it something that can never be violated like, say, the Law of Gravity?

2. The picture shows a diagram of a complicated structure from a bacteria. Why, specifically, does that support your contention that "nature does not and cannot generate life"?

3. Is there a complexity level above which nature cannot put together the building blocks to produce that complexity?

4. What are the units of measure for biological complexity. What are the units of measure for non-biological complexity? Can the two be compared?

5. What experiments have shown that nature cannot build complexity?

6. What is the maximum level of complexity that nature can build?


1. It is a law as demonstrated by nigh unlimited examples, ie- an inanimate chair cannot give birth to a baby chair... etc etc. Its really a deduction of common sense actually. It could be defied like the law of gravity however in defying gravity a measure of intelligence is required thus you really should be asking, can this law be defied naturally without an intelligent agent... Since the evolution of life is claimed to be wholly natural and not requiring an intelligent agent as a cause.

2. The fact that life, in order to exist, requires multple systems in place, in the first second of life. When you research into Biochemistry you see that the cell is a very complicated molecular machine where parts directly or indirectly rely on each other in order to function. However since this is required from the get-go, it defies the belief that small changes over time can accomplish such things since the cell line would already be dead by the time the newest installment occurs.

3. Short answer- Yes.

Has nature ever produced complexity from randomness? You can think it does, but perhaps try a few abstract tests.

throw a group of pens in the air, do they align to write a word?
throw a handful of coloured paper (with different colours) does it form a tangible picture?
watch the waves on the beach does it ever write maths equations in the sand?
etc etc etc

When has anyone ever observed nature to create something complex from random events? Therefore why in the world to people assume that such happens "over millions of years" when its not demonstrable in the now?

NOTE: Using the term complex as per information / activities that depict / require information since that is what we observe within the DNA code.

4. There are no units per-se, (as far as I know), since scientists aren't interested in defining complexity of organisms, since to do so would shine a spotlight onto this problem. Therefore they merely brush it under the rug and hope people don't use their brains and figure it out. Essentially this is how it goes
- life is complex
- evolution did it or must have done it
- life is evidence of evolution

5. I'd prefer you to ask the reverse, what experiments have they done to prove that it can... Considering that scientists are supposed to be skeptical.... Which would entail not to assume something occurs because you don't have evidence that it doesn't, rather you should have evidence that it does occur, whereas the default position would be to claim that it doesn't occur due to the lack of evidence that it does.

Essentially you're asking us to support the negative premise of a premise that is yet to be verified in itself.

First come with the evidence that such things can occur then we can discuss why they can't.



6. The maximum "level" of complexity I would assume would be unassisted chemical reactions that occur spontaneously, other reactions can occur due to changes in environment composition, however out within the ocean the concentrations of chemicals within such an environment would be so low that any changes that do occur are barely noticeable. Unless of course you assume evolution and abiogenesis is true then essentially "nature" can do anything...

#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:47 PM

Jonas, Gilbo has just laid before you an array of replies that pinpoint exact answers to your questions.

I don't think I can do better than he has on this matter so I wish to wait to see how you answer him before I reply.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:24 AM

Why do they call it the Law of Biogenesis? Is it something that can never be violated like, say, the Law of Gravity?...

I was just thinking of a response a dedicated Evolutionist may have; just that I phrased it a bit differently in my mind: "How do we know that the Law of Abiogenesis is a natural law with no exceptions?"... Well, given that you brought it up here just apply this question as well to gravity:"How do we know that the Law of gravity can not be violated with no exceptions?"

#9 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:57 AM

1. It is a law as demonstrated by nigh unlimited examples, ie- an inanimate chair cannot give birth to a baby chair... etc etc. Its really a deduction of common sense actually. It could be defied like the law of gravity however in defying gravity a measure of intelligence is required thus you really should be asking, can this law be defied naturally without an intelligent agent... Since the evolution of life is claimed to be wholly natural and not requiring an intelligent agent as a cause.

2. The fact that life, in order to exist, requires multple systems in place, in the first second of life. When you research into Biochemistry you see that the cell is a very complicated molecular machine where parts directly or indirectly rely on each other in order to function. However since this is required from the get-go, it defies the belief that small changes over time can accomplish such things since the cell line would already be dead by the time the newest installment occurs.

3. Short answer- Yes. Has nature ever produced complexity from randomness? You can think it does, but perhaps try a few abstract tests. throw a group of pens in the air, do they align to write a word? throw a handful of coloured paper (with different colours) does it form a tangible picture? watch the waves on the beach does it ever write maths equations in the sand? etc etc etc When has anyone ever observed nature to create something complex from random events? Therefore why in the world to people assume that such happens "over millions of years" when its not demonstrable in the now? NOTE: Using the term complex as per information / activities that depict / require information since that is what we observe within the DNA code.

4. There are no units per-se, (as far as I know), since scientists aren't interested in defining complexity of organisms, since to do so would shine a spotlight onto this problem. Therefore they merely brush it under the rug and hope people don't use their brains and figure it out. Essentially this is how it goes - life is complex - evolution did it or must have done it - life is evidence of evolution

5. I'd prefer you to ask the reverse, what experiments have they done to prove that it can... Considering that scientists are supposed to be skeptical.... Which would entail not to assume something occurs because you don't have evidence that it doesn't, rather you should have evidence that it does occur, whereas the default position would be to claim that it doesn't occur due to the lack of evidence that it does. Essentially you're asking us to support the negative premise of a premise that is yet to be verified in itself. First come with the evidence that such things can occur then we can discuss why they can't.

6. The maximum "level" of complexity I would assume would be unassisted chemical reactions that occur spontaneously, other reactions can occur due to changes in environment composition, however out within the ocean the concentrations of chemicals within such an environment would be so low that any changes that do occur are barely noticeable. Unless of course you assume evolution and abiogenesis is true then essentially "nature" can do anything...

1. Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Self replicating chemicals have been built by scientists and they have been shown to modify themselves to be more efficient in particular environments. It's not life but it is self replicating. What happens to Pasteur's Law if scientists succeed in having these self replicators produce a form of life? Sure, it required intelligence but Pasteur's law doesn't have the caveat that with intelligence life can arise from non-life. His "law" says life cannot arise from non-life....period.

2. Your "The fact that life, in order to exist, requires multple systems in place, in the first second of life" is merely an axiom that you proposed. It is not in any way shown to be true of all life. Basically, it is a restatement of your contention that interdependent systems cannot evolve. Rather than spit that out as some kind of biological fact, even though almost all biologists disagree with you, perhaps you should provide some experimental data that show the interdependent systems are (1) truly interdependent in order for the life to continue, and (2) cannot have developed from another system that existed before it like aerobic cellular respiration developing from anaerobic respiration.

3. Is the formation of a word from falling pens more complex than any other form that the pens take when falling to the ground?
Is the form taken by the colored paper after it is dropped more or less complex than the picture?
Are math equations in the sand more complex than the ripples formed by the waves?

Is "kljo8la;iuyo8uy2m eyu" less complex than "123456789" or is it more complex? Explain your answer.

Is a typhoon complex? Is a mountain range complex? Would you consider the Great Barrier Reef to be simple or complex?

Do you think that the typhoon, the mountain range and the Great Barrier Reef were not caused by random events?

4. Your statement is incorrect. Scientists are, indeed, interested in studying complexity. It is a whole field of endeavor, see http://www.lsa.umich.edu/cscs/ and http://en.wikipedia....Complex_systems. They even write books on it. Maybe you could find one at your university. Kinda blows a hole in your all-scientists-that-support-evolution-are-part-of-a-mass-worldwide-conspiracy hypothesis.

5. I contend that typhoons, mountain ranges and the Great Barrier Reef are complex. Therefore nature in and of itself has built complexity. I have provided real examples....where is your experimental data that show nature cannot build complexity?

6. All reactions occur unassisted and spontaneously if the chemical concentration is high enough. So, that is not really a measure of the "level" of complexity that nature cannot build. Since the chemical concentration of reactants is low in the ocean, you now contend that there is no aqueous place on Earth that chemical concentrations build up naturally to a level that can cause chemical reactions to occur unassisted?

I don't "assume" evolution and abiogenesis.
I assume that the non-living part of nature did in the past what it does today. One exception is that certain chemicals would build up to higher concentrations since they were not being used by living organisms

#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:56 AM

...Is a typhoon complex? Is a mountain range complex? Would you consider the Great Barrier Reef to be simple or complex?

Do you think that the typhoon, the mountain range and the Great Barrier Reef were not caused by random events?
...

How about a snow crystal? You do get none-organisms in nature the display some attributes of complexity. They are however the results of following laws of nature under certain circumstance. So that complexity didn't come from the event, but from something that has already been built into it before.

What you say about self-replicating molecules as potential exceptions, couldn't/aren't there be some exceptions of something like that for gravity as well?

Regarding the origin of life, I know many Evolutionists try to exclude it, when it comes to debating Evolution. But it still is kind of connected to the subject and coherent part of the Cosmology. Hence one should debate this issue with them with them as well. So did the first cell arise from dead matter by some unintelligent event or was there some intelligence involved in it?

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:08 PM

1. Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Self replicating chemicals have been built by scientists and they have been shown to modify themselves to be more efficient in particular environments. It's not life but it is self replicating. What happens to Pasteur's Law if scientists succeed in having these self replicators produce a form of life? Sure, it required intelligence but Pasteur's law doesn't have the caveat that with intelligence life can arise from non-life. His "law" says life cannot arise from non-life....period.

2. Your "The fact that life, in order to exist, requires multple systems in place, in the first second of life" is merely an axiom that you proposed. It is not in any way shown to be true of all life. Basically, it is a restatement of your contention that interdependent systems cannot evolve. Rather than spit that out as some kind of biological fact, even though almost all biologists disagree with you, perhaps you should provide some experimental data that show the interdependent systems are (1) truly interdependent in order for the life to continue, and (2) cannot have developed from another system that existed before it like aerobic cellular respiration developing from anaerobic respiration.

3. Is the formation of a word from falling pens more complex than any other form that the pens take when falling to the ground?
Is the form taken by the colored paper after it is dropped more or less complex than the picture?
Are math equations in the sand more complex than the ripples formed by the waves?

Is "kljo8la;iuyo8uy2m eyu" less complex than "123456789" or is it more complex? Explain your answer.

Is a typhoon complex? Is a mountain range complex? Would you consider the Great Barrier Reef to be simple or complex?

Do you think that the typhoon, the mountain range and the Great Barrier Reef were not caused by random events?

4. Your statement is incorrect. Scientists are, indeed, interested in studying complexity. It is a whole field of endeavor, see http://www.lsa.umich.edu/cscs/ and http://en.wikipedia....Complex_systems. They even write books on it. Maybe you could find one at your university. Kinda blows a hole in your all-scientists-that-support-evolution-are-part-of-a-mass-worldwide-conspiracy hypothesis.

5. I contend that typhoons, mountain ranges and the Great Barrier Reef are complex. Therefore nature in and of itself has built complexity. I have provided real examples....where is your experimental data that show nature cannot build complexity?

6. All reactions occur unassisted and spontaneously if the chemical concentration is high enough. So, that is not really a measure of the "level" of complexity that nature cannot build. Since the chemical concentration of reactants is low in the ocean, you now contend that there is no aqueous place on Earth that chemical concentrations build up naturally to a level that can cause chemical reactions to occur unassisted?

I don't "assume" evolution and abiogenesis.
I assume that the non-living part of nature did in the past what it does today. One exception is that certain chemicals would build up to higher concentrations since they were not being used by living organisms


Thanks Calypsis :D


1. ..... You said "self replicating molecules have been built by scientists"... case in point :P
I have asked you in another point where are the examples of NATURE doing this all by itself. You, as an intelligent agent, cannot create something and then turn around and claim that random processes can do the exact same thing, merely because you are able to do so, (as an intelligent agent)... See where I am going here, if some of these scientists actually devoted some logic to this they'd realise that their "search for the origins of life" will equate to absolute nothing unless they do not interfere at all, sure they can set up an environment however once the environment is set only natural reactions / interactions count, anything else is deemed an intelligent agent thus destroying the validity of the study.

2. Ummmm, yeah it has been shown to be true and it can be proved time and again via blocking genes. Ok lets say I have a bacterial cell and block every gene appart for those associated with glycolysis... then we can see what happens.... Doesn't take a rocket scientist dude, its common sense, (though what do we call common sense when it isn't that common? ).

Consider that proteins need to be replaced over time as they wear out, however in order to replace said protein you need to refer to the instructions for making said protein, however you need to upkeep and maintain these instructions, additionally to do so you need to produce energy, but these proteins wear out, so you need to replace them... and around we go again....

Oh boy... the aerobic from anaerobic again... I have already demolished this pet claim of yours in the other thread. I'll merely ask from where did the anaerobic respiration come from... Also how does the cell survive whilst the changes are occuring, since what you are proposing is akin to changing a motor from petrol to gas... whilst its still running.


3. I am talking about processes here, yes the GBR is complex however that is what we are discussing about complexity so an example of the thing we are discussing isn't helpful to your argument at all.

Do you really think the pens will align in "kljo8la;iuyo8uy2m eyu" in that EXACT order,with no missing pieces or extra bits overlapping..... You sir have an extraordinary amount of faith. It doesn't matter which order we use as long as the order is meaningful then it is complex.

4. Wow! Maybe there is hope for them yet lol. I've been speaking from my own experiences where an example of complexity comes up in a lecture and its immediately claimed "evolution did it" (or something to that effect), without actually pointing out the specific mechanisms and causes for such a thing... As if claiming evolution was a magic wand that made those questions go away.

5. Shakes head....

GBR = this is an example of what we are debating about (life being complex, GBR is an ecosystem of life)
Mountains = How are these "complex"?
Typhoons = How are these "complex"?

Keep in mind my disclaimer, (which you've totally ignored...)

"NOTE: Using the term complex as per information / activities that depict / require information since that is what we observe within the DNA code."

As I have asked in previous threads, please try and read my posts.


6. No in fact it is, since only via spontaneous reactions can "nature" do things chemically. It sounds like you believe this "nature" fellow to have the power to change things at will without conforming to natural law.... Nature is governed by natural law and in order to achieve these "self replicating molecules" only natural processes (governed by natural law with no intelligent input) can be utilised by the evolutionist. Thereofore only spontaneous reactions can be utilised.

Yes I do contend that the ocean would be too dilute for the concentration of reactants to be at sufficient levels for reactions to proceed, (gathering the concentrations required is another topic all together), I never said there wasn't an aqueous place (read my post, putting words in peoples mouths is not cool), I'm saying the ocean is too vast for it to have occured within it.

#12 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:10 PM

1. Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Self replicating chemicals have been built by scientists and they have been shown to modify themselves to be more efficient in particular environments. It's not life but it is self replicating. What happens to Pasteur's Law if scientists succeed in having these self replicators produce a form of life? Sure, it required intelligence but Pasteur's law doesn't have the caveat that with intelligence life can arise from non-life. His "law" says life cannot arise from non-life....period.


One example of life that NATURE has generated from non-living matter will put this baby to rest. So where is it?

2. Your "The fact that life, in order to exist, requires multple systems in place, in the first second of life" is merely an axiom that you proposed. It is not in any way shown to be true of all life. Basically, it is a restatement of your contention that interdependent systems cannot evolve. Rather than spit that out as some kind of biological fact, even though almost all biologists disagree with you, perhaps you should provide some experimental data that show the interdependent systems are (1) truly interdependent in order for the life to continue, and (2) cannot have developed from another system that existed before it like aerobic cellular respiration developing from anaerobic respiration.


An axiom? What? We don't care if 'almost all biologists disagree with you' (how many have you interviewed?) as you assert. And we don't care about your opinions. We want to see living organisms that can function without the complex vital elements that make them tick.

aerobic respiration? O.K.

Posted Image

This supposedly evolved from non-aerobic respiration (the form of respiration using electron acceptors other than oxygen) in the distant past. Now tell us how this happened and demonstrate it. Give us the a.b.c.d.e.f.g. process and show us that it actually happened in earth's history.

3. Is the formation of a word from falling pens more complex than any other form that the pens take when falling to the ground?


Is this a joke? When did you ever see pens write a word or even letters of the alphabet while falling. Name it and describe it, please.

Is the form taken by the colored paper after it is dropped more or less complex than the picture?


Color has nothing to do with the complexity of the pattern formed. Where do you think you're going with this?

Are math equations in the sand more complex than the ripples formed by the waves?


Yes. By many degrees as it concerns specificity.


I assume that the non-living part of nature did in the past what it does today. One exception is that certain chemicals would build up to higher concentrations since they were not being used by living organisms


How do you know that? Demonstrate it by observed example.

#13 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:24 AM

How about a snow crystal? You do get none-organisms in nature the display some attributes of complexity. They are however the results of following laws of nature under certain circumstance. So that complexity didn't come from the event, but from something that has already been built into it before.

What you say about self-replicating molecules as potential exceptions, couldn't/aren't there be some exceptions of something like that for gravity as well?

Regarding the origin of life, I know many Evolutionists try to exclude it, when it comes to debating Evolution. But it still is kind of connected to the subject and coherent part of the Cosmology. Hence one should debate this issue with them with them as well. So did the first cell arise from dead matter by some unintelligent event or was there some intelligence involved in it?


I never said that self-replicating molecules were exceptions to "following the laws of nature". Do you think they are? In what way do they violate the "laws of nature"?

I also didn't say the complexity came from the event (not sure what you mean by that, anyway), but from the laws of nature themselves. If God put the laws of nature together and the result was that the laws allowed complexity to arise "naturally", I have no problem with that. Regardless, complexity arises via the laws of nature unless you wish to put forth the hypothesis that God puts together each snowflake individually.

#14 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:56 AM

Thanks Calypsis Posted Image


1. ..... You said "self replicating molecules have been built by scientists"... case in point Posted Image
I have asked you in another point where are the examples of NATURE doing this all by itself. You, as an intelligent agent, cannot create something and then turn around and claim that random processes can do the exact same thing, merely because you are able to do so, (as an intelligent agent)... See where I am going here, if some of these scientists actually devoted some logic to this they'd realise that their "search for the origins of life" will equate to absolute nothing unless they do not interfere at all, sure they can set up an environment however once the environment is set only natural reactions / interactions count, anything else is deemed an intelligent agent thus destroying the validity of the study.

2. Ummmm, yeah it has been shown to be true and it can be proved time and again via blocking genes. Ok lets say I have a bacterial cell and block every gene appart for those associated with glycolysis... then we can see what happens.... Doesn't take a rocket scientist dude, its common sense, (though what do we call common sense when it isn't that common? ).

Consider that proteins need to be replaced over time as they wear out, however in order to replace said protein you need to refer to the instructions for making said protein, however you need to upkeep and maintain these instructions, additionally to do so you need to produce energy, but these proteins wear out, so you need to replace them... and around we go again....

Oh boy... the aerobic from anaerobic again... I have already demolished this pet claim of yours in the other thread. I'll merely ask from where did the anaerobic respiration come from... Also how does the cell survive whilst the changes are occuring, since what you are proposing is akin to changing a motor from petrol to gas... whilst its still running.


3. I am talking about processes here, yes the GBR is complex however that is what we are discussing about complexity so an example of the thing we are discussing isn't helpful to your argument at all.

Do you really think the pens will align in "kljo8la;iuyo8uy2m eyu" in that EXACT order,with no missing pieces or extra bits overlapping..... You sir have an extraordinary amount of faith. It doesn't matter which order we use as long as the order is meaningful then it is complex.

4. Wow! Maybe there is hope for them yet lol. I've been speaking from my own experiences where an example of complexity comes up in a lecture and its immediately claimed "evolution did it" (or something to that effect), without actually pointing out the specific mechanisms and causes for such a thing... As if claiming evolution was a magic wand that made those questions go away.

5. Shakes head....

GBR = this is an example of what we are debating about (life being complex, GBR is an ecosystem of life)
Mountains = How are these "complex"?
Typhoons = How are these "complex"?

Keep in mind my disclaimer, (which you've totally ignored...)

"NOTE: Using the term complex as per information / activities that depict / require information since that is what we observe within the DNA code."

As I have asked in previous threads, please try and read my posts.


6. No in fact it is, since only via spontaneous reactions can "nature" do things chemically. It sounds like you believe this "nature" fellow to have the power to change things at will without conforming to natural law.... Nature is governed by natural law and in order to achieve these "self replicating molecules" only natural processes (governed by natural law with no intelligent input) can be utilised by the evolutionist. Thereofore only spontaneous reactions can be utilised.

Yes I do contend that the ocean would be too dilute for the concentration of reactants to be at sufficient levels for reactions to proceed, (gathering the concentrations required is another topic all together), I never said there wasn't an aqueous place (read my post, putting words in peoples mouths is not cool), I'm saying the ocean is too vast for it to have occured within it.


1. So says the guy that doesn't understand how to set up an experiment so that the parameters to be observed are not affected by the constraints if the experiment. By your criteria, any experiment that requires a laboratory is invalid because a person built the laboratory.

2. If gycolysis is the only process running the cell will die earlier than if all the processes are running. So? The real question is will the cell produce offspring before its death. Yeast will. So, that pretty much shows that aerobic cellular respiration is not irreducibly complex.

BTW: Refusal to acknowledge my arguments is not the same thing as demolishing them....at least not in most definitions of those two terms.

3. The form of the GBR, location of corals, anemone's...etc, is complex. Did the form of the GBR arise through random events or controlled events? Did that complexity of form arise from nature or did God choose the location of each coral?

4. I note the acknowledgement on your part that scientists do not ignore or hand-wave away the problems of complexity.

5. Now you get to redefine complexity. Perhaps you mean "specified complexity"?
Can you demonstrate that DNA is an example of "specified complexity"? What is it about the DNA molecule that indicates it depicts or requires more information than a typhoon or mountain range? Telling me that it is obvious is not really an explanation.

6. What "natural law" prevents the self replicating molecules from forming? Name a chemical reaction that is not spontaneous. Wait, don't do that. You will have to give me your definition of spontaneous reaction first. Perhaps it means a chemical reaction that occurs without the reactants in close proximity to each other.

Strange, I don't recall the word "vast" in your previous post. Besides, the vastness of the ocean has little to do with the concentration of chemical reactants in any particular part of the ocean. Coastlines contain a myriad of locations that can concentrate chemical reactants.

#15 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:30 AM

One example of life that NATURE has generated from non-living matter will put this baby to rest. So where is it?

Aren't you the person who said that even if scientists succeed at producing life in the lab, the Law of Biogenesis would not be overturned?

An axiom? What? We don't care if 'almost all biologists disagree with you' (how many have you interviewed?) as you assert. And we don't care about your opinions. We want to see living organisms that can function without the complex vital elements that make them tick.

I think you don't understand my point. I mean that life may not require all the interrelated systems that we see in life today. That is evidenced by the fact that not all life metabolizes their energy source in the same way. Each organism needs to get energy. That energy is obtained by breaking or forming chemical bonds. There are at least two ways that the energy is obtained: aerobic respiration and anaerobic respiration. One appears more efficient than the other and also seems to have a better net energy increase. However, both systems are used by living organisms today. So, while I agree that systems are required for organisms to live, I disagree that any particular system had to exist for life to exist.

aerobic respiration? O.K.

This supposedly evolved from non-aerobic respiration (the form of respiration using electron acceptors other than oxygen) in the distant past. Now tell us how this happened and demonstrate it. Give us the a.b.c.d.e.f.g. process and show us that it actually happened in earth's history.

Right after you show me the process God used to create the birds out of the oceans and show me that it actually happened in earth's history.

Is this a joke? When did you ever see pens write a word or even letters of the alphabet while falling. Name it and describe it, please.

Missed my point again. I asked if pens set in the form of words is more complex than pens in a pile. If you contend that the form of words is more complex, describe in detail what is it that makes it more complex.

Color has nothing to do with the complexity of the pattern formed. Where do you think you're going with this?


Again, is paper in the form of a picture you can recognize, like a portrait of Abe Lincoln, more or less complex than paper in a seemingly random pile on the floor? Explain your answer in detail.

Yes. By many degrees as it concerns specificity.


What do you mean by specificity in the case of math equations versus wave ripples in the sand?




How do you know that? Demonstrate it by observed example.


How do I know what?

That nature worked in the past the same way it does now? I would think that different physical constants would leave clues that they were different. If it didn't then I cannot depend on any observations from the past. This would also invalidate the whole fine tuning argument for the existence of God. If natural laws were different in the past then the location of the earth's orbit has no meaning with regard to the existence of life on earth.

How do I know that chemical concentrations would be higher? I used the logic that if life forms were not using the chemicals then there would less chemicals being used up and those chemicals would reach a higher equilibrium level than if life were present.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:46 AM

1. So says the guy that doesn't understand how to set up an experiment so that the parameters to be observed are not affected by the constraints if the experiment. By your criteria, any experiment that requires a laboratory is invalid because a person built the laboratory.

2. If gycolysis is the only process running the cell will die earlier than if all the processes are running. So? The real question is will the cell produce offspring before its death. Yeast will. So, that pretty much shows that aerobic cellular respiration is not irreducibly complex.

BTW: Refusal to acknowledge my arguments is not the same thing as demolishing them....at least not in most definitions of those two terms.

3. The form of the GBR, location of corals, anemone's...etc, is complex. Did the form of the GBR arise through random events or controlled events? Did that complexity of form arise from nature or did God choose the location of each coral?

4. I note the acknowledgement on your part that scientists do not ignore or hand-wave away the problems of complexity.

5. Now you get to redefine complexity. Perhaps you mean "specified complexity"?
Can you demonstrate that DNA is an example of "specified complexity"? What is it about the DNA molecule that indicates it depicts or requires more information than a typhoon or mountain range? Telling me that it is obvious is not really an explanation.

6. What "natural law" prevents the self replicating molecules from forming?

7. Name a chemical reaction that is not spontaneous. Wait, don't do that. You will have to give me your definition of spontaneous reaction first.

8. Perhaps it means a chemical reaction that occurs without the reactants in close proximity to each other.

9. Strange, I don't recall the word "vast" in your previous post.

10. Besides, the vastness of the ocean has little to do with the concentration of chemical reactants in any particular part of the ocean. Coastlines contain a myriad of locations that can concentrate chemical reactants.


1. Groan.... Yet again you are putting YOUR words in my mouth, I never said such a thing. Actually I said the opposite if you bothered to actually read and comprehend my posts... (Which I continue to ask you to do...)

"sure they can set up an environment however once the environment is set only natural reactions / interactions count, anything else is deemed an intelligent agent thus destroying the validity of the study."

Setting up an environment within a lab.... totally goes against what you are stating I am saying..... oops

2. Great!! You acknowledge the cell will die without all the other processes.... Therefore how can you state that a cell came about "bit by bit" as per evolution, when you realise that to do such will result in death. Ergo the ONLY way for the cell to survive is to have ALL its parts intact and functioning right at the start of life. There is no room for its buts or maybes, you're admitted that death will result in only a partial system, therefore the method claimed from evolutionary processes ie- abiogenesis will result in death since this is the exact method it is claiming.....

Yeast will? Yeast will survive will all of its genes neutered except for those specifically relating to glycolysis? If not then your premise doesn't rebutt my claim, (or you just don't understand what I am trying to teach you here).

3. Must I repeat..

"Keep in mind my disclaimer, (which you've totally ignored...)

"NOTE: Using the term complex as per information / activities that depict / require information since that is what we observe within the DNA code."

.... ( you need to read and comprehend my posts)


How does a coral reef fit within the complexity demonstrated within the formation of life because honestly I do not see how your argument has ANY correlation to this thread at all.. its merely a red herring.

4. Ummm you need to read again..... I never said such a thing....

" I've been speaking from my own experiences where an example of complexity comes up in a lecture and its immediately claimed "evolution did it" (or something to that effect), without actually pointing out the specific mechanisms and causes for such a thing... As if claiming evolution was a magic wand that made those questions go away."

Claiming evolution as a cause but without any mechanisms for said cause IS a hand-wavy explanation, no amount of mental gymnastics can change that.

5. That was what I stated as a disclaimer of my intent before your post, if you disagreed with such you should have read and comprehended it before. In fact its a clarification of the complexity Calypsis is mentioning in his OP, (I did this so you cannot equivocate, which you've been trying to do this entire time).

6. Did I state that there was a natural law? (Again you are putting words in my mouth... very bad form). I said that in order for these "experiments" to be valid pertaining to a natural cause of life it must be wholly 100% pertaining to natural laws and processes. Thus no human intervention like, Miller removing the carboxylic acids between shocks and lowering the voltage to less than 1% of actual lightning, etc....

7. I am not your teacher if you want something defined go search for the definition. I use the definition all scientists use, it is not ambigous so there are not multiple interpretations.

8. You're kidding right!!! Please tell me this was a joke... Please! A chemical reaction that occurs when the reactants are not close to each other?... Do you know what a chemical reaction is? You mustn't since you wouldn't say such a silly thing. A chemical reaction occurs when two molecules bump into each other with the proper activation energy. This is why enzymes increase the rate of reaction, as enzymes hold molecules in specific positions which lowers the activation energy required, thus meaning a larger % of the bumbing atoms will have enough energy to produce the reaction... Now please tell me since a reaction is when two molecules are bumping into each other... how in the world can you have a reaction that occurs when the reactants are not close to each other? This isn't magic, this is science, please keep that in mind.

9. Vast is a describing word, am I not allowed to use descriptive words in my posts now? Honestly you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel if you are going to argue over my use of a describing word... It just goes without saying the ocean is indeed vast, or would you like to debate this fact too?

10. Umm yeah it does... The concentration of a substance within a medium is directly correlated to the amount of molecules (moles / M) and its volume (V)...

C=M/V
volume is the amount of medium meaning the larger V is like ocean sized the smaller the concentration... This is an establised equation, go look it up in a chemistry book. Additionally this also works with equilibrium which acts to ensure that the concentration of X within the ocean will be equal (allowing time for dispersion to occur).

Therefore how large the ocean is DOES have an effect on the concentration of the reactants.... Do you believe the ocean at one point was littered with peptides and such? This is what you need to believe if you want to believe that abiogenesis occured in the ocean... that at one time the ocean was a goopy mass of sludge with peptides, carboxylic acids, lipids etc.... However, where did all the water come from if it used to be so thick full of "reactants for life"?

#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:53 PM

Aren't you the person who said that even if scientists succeed at producing life in the lab, the Law of Biogenesis would not be overturned?


No.

But if you thought I really said that then why didn't you take the time to find my statement and quote me?


I think you don't understand my point. I mean that life may not require all the interrelated systems that we see in life today. That is evidenced by the fact that not all life metabolizes their energy source in the same way. Each organism needs to get energy. That energy is obtained by breaking or forming chemical bonds. There are at least two ways that the energy is obtained: aerobic respiration and anaerobic respiration. One appears more efficient than the other and also seems to have a better net energy increase. However, both systems are used by living organisms today. So, while I agree that systems are required for organisms to live, I disagree that any particular system had to exist for life to exist.


What 'organism' needed to 'get energy' before the first living cell? If evolution were true then the primal ocean contained only dead chemicals. Right?


Right after you show me the process God used to create the birds out of the oceans and show me that it actually happened in earth's history.


'birds out of the oceans'...and everything else living except man, whom He created out of the dust of the earth. That is no problem for God Almighty. God has no problems.

Having seen the supernatural power of the Lord on a number of occasions (with witnesses) I have no problem with the creation as written. There is no law that forbids His creation act. But there is a law against nature doing the same thing. So stay on the subject.

Missed my point again. I asked if pens set in the form of words is more complex than pens in a pile. If you contend that the form of words is more complex, describe in detail what is it that makes it more complex.


No, no, no, you don't. I challenged you to describe any instance in which pens write anything in any way at any time...by your personal observation. Have you seen pens fall in a random manner that produce words? How about just letters?

And yes, pens falling to accidentally form a word or even a letter like 'a' 'c' or 'x' would be several degrees less in specificity than would be a result like 'cat', 'dog' or 'Hi'. It only gets harder on you if you insist that ocean water washing up a simple pattern (which specifies nothing other than ocean water making a pattern) is of the same degree of specificity in information. Don't even try to play mental games with me here, pal. Ocean water created patterns could not tell me to 'come home for supper' but words carved out by an intelligent being could.



Again, is paper in the form of a picture you can recognize, like a portrait of Abe Lincoln, more or less complex than paper in a seemingly random pile on the floor? Explain your answer in detail.


See what I just said above and do some real thinking instead of running from the obvious.



What do you mean by specificity in the case of math equations versus wave ripples in the sand?


See above. Quit playing mental gymnastics.

How do I know what?

That nature worked in the past the same way it does now? I would think that different physical constants would leave clues that they were different. If it didn't then I cannot depend on any observations from the past. This would also invalidate the whole fine tuning argument for the existence of God. If natural laws were different in the past then the location of the earth's orbit has no meaning with regard to the existence of life on earth.


I asked you to give us the evolution of non-aerobic to aerobic respiration a.b.c.d.e.f.g. scenario and you couldn't even do that much.

Give us, by observation an example that life has generated life from non-living matter.Is that too hard for you to figure out? Now either do that or admit you have no case and that the Law of Biogenesis is a LAW because it has been repeatedly tested and proven countless times since the days of Pasteur and Redi.

How do I know that chemical concentrations would be higher? I used the logic that if life forms were not using the chemicals then there would less chemicals being used up and those chemicals would reach a higher equilibrium level than if life were present.


No. You haven't used one bit of logic so far.You're reaching.

But then, that's all you can do.

#18 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:34 AM

No.

But if you thought I really said that then why didn't you take the time to find my statement and quote me?

Sorry, I guess I was wrong about that. Then do you agree that the Law of Biogenesis would be overturned if scientists succeeded at producing life from non-life?


What 'organism' needed to 'get energy' before the first living cell? If evolution were true then the primal ocean contained only dead chemicals. Right?

So? If chemicals interact, energy is given off or consumed. The cellular functions are chemical reactions which give off or consume energy. What is the difference between "living" chemicals and "dead" chemicals?

'birds out of the oceans'...and everything else living except man, whom He created out of the dust of the earth. That is no problem for God Almighty. God has no problems.

Having seen the supernatural power of the Lord on a number of occasions (with witnesses) I have no problem with the creation as written. There is no law that forbids His creation act. But there is a law against nature doing the same thing. So stay on the subject.

In other words, God used a miracle. Two problems. The only evidence is the writings of someone (perhaps Moses) and it really doesn't explain anything. For instance, how many species of birds did God make? All of them that we see today or less? What is the taxonomic classification of this "kind" that living things produces themselves after? No questions are actually answered by "it's a miracle".

No, no, no, you don't. I challenged you to describe any instance in which pens write anything in any way at any time...by your personal observation. Have you seen pens fall in a random manner that produce words? How about just letters?

And yes, pens falling to accidentally form a word or even a letter like 'a' 'c' or 'x' would be several degrees less in specificity than would be a result like 'cat', 'dog' or 'Hi'. It only gets harder on you if you insist that ocean water washing up a simple pattern (which specifies nothing other than ocean water making a pattern) is of the same degree of specificity in information. Don't even try to play mental games with me here, pal. Ocean water created patterns could not tell me to 'come home for supper' but words carved out by an intelligent being could.

You may have challenged me to do that but since I never said it could happen easily, I see no reason to answer your challenge. Your "challenge" is being used to equate the likelihood that chemicals can follow the laws of nature and produce life with the likelihood that dropped pens will produce a sentence in the first drop. You have not shown that the probabilities are similar so the comparison is not worth anything.

See what I just said above and do some real thinking instead of running from the obvious.


Implying that I don't think just because I don't draw the same conclusions as you borders on insulting. I will show respect to you and consider the worth of your ideas if you will kindly do the same for me.

The question I am asking is if a portrait formed from cut pieces of paper is more complex than the shapes formed by dropping them.

See above. Quit playing mental gymnastics.

If you don't define your terms, I cannot provide a reply to your questions that addresses your point.

So, how do you define "specificity" with regard to the waves and sand example?

I asked you to give us the evolution of non-aerobic to aerobic respiration a.b.c.d.e.f.g. scenario and you couldn't even do that much.

Give us, by observation an example that life has generated life from non-living matter.Is that too hard for you to figure out? Now either do that or admit you have no case and that the Law of Biogenesis is a LAW because it has been repeatedly tested and proven countless times since the days of Pasteur and Redi.

No. I won't give you the evolution of non-aerobic to aerobic respiration because no one knows exactly how it happened. I could provide a link to a website that provides one or two scenarios of how it could have happened along with some evidence. However, other creationists, to whom I have provide such links, simply say that those are simply imaginative stories and they wanted to be told the actual way that it happened. I have no reason to believe that your response would be different than theirs.

No. You haven't used one bit of logic so far.You're reaching.

But then, that's all you can do.

Again with the insulting comments. Are you saying that if there were no life on this planet that the consumption of certain chemicals, that life consumes now, would remain the same?

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5291 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 October 2012 - 05:43 AM

BTW: Refusal to acknowledge my arguments is not the same thing as demolishing them....at least not in most definitions of those two terms.


Oops I missed this. Dude anyone can revert back to that thread and see for themselves, I initiated the stop on the thread as I was having to repeat myself over and over since you were refusing to understand. If you wish for us to continue I challenge you to post a response on that thread and we can take it from there, (a round 2 if you will). Lets just hope this time you read my posts, since repeating myself does get tedious at times.

#20 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:43 AM

Sorry, I guess I was wrong about that. Then do you agree that the Law of Biogenesis would be overturned if scientists succeeded at producing life from non-life?

I'm/we're still waiting. One observed/documented example from you and this debate is over and you win.

So? If chemicals interact, energy is given off or consumed. The cellular functions are chemical reactions which give off or consume energy. What is the difference between "living" chemicals and "dead" chemicals?

This is just what I meant by 'reaching'. You are reaching big time. If you don't even know the difference between a living organism and non-living chemicals then how could you possibly even grasp that nature originated 'life' from the 'non-living'? You are in direct denial of the Law that is at least a hundred years older than you are and it became a law in the same manner that gravity, the 1st & 2nd laws of Thermodynamics, etc. became law: by continual direct observation and experimentation over many years.

In other words, God used a miracle. Two problems. The only evidence is the writings of someone (perhaps Moses) and it really doesn't explain anything. For instance, how many species of birds did God make? All of them that we see today or less? What is the taxonomic classification of this "kind" that living things produces themselves after? No questions are actually answered by "it's a miracle".

Oh, yes it does. God's Word is God's Word and true whether you believe in it or not. Like gravity (which He created) it does not cease to be gravity because someone like you arbitrarily decides that it does not exist. There are many people, including myself that have seen the miraculous and direct, specific answers to prayer and your opinions to the contrary will not change what we experienced, recorded, and observed with witnesses.

You may have challenged me to do that but since I never said it could happen easily, I see no reason to answer your challenge. Your "challenge" is being used to equate the likelihood that chemicals can follow the laws of nature and produce life with the likelihood that dropped pens will produce a sentence in the first drop. You have not shown that the probabilities are similar so the comparison is not worth anything.

The laws of nature tell us that non-living chemicals WON'T combine to form life. But again, one observable example will prove us wrong.

Implying that I don't think just because I don't draw the same conclusions as you borders on insulting. I will show respect to you and consider the worth of your ideas if you will kindly do the same for me.

It's insulting to those you oppose on this issue to throw out drivel and play mental gymnastics with something that is already firmly established as a law of science and to insist that nature will do blindly what it cannot do...supported by the fact that no one in the history of science has ever seen it happen.

The question I am asking is if a portrait formed from cut pieces of paper is more complex than the shapes formed by dropping them.

But still you give no example nor how such a thing is even valid to the argument. Answer MY question implied in the OP: Has the Law of Bigoenesis ever been overthrown? Yes/No. If yes, then give us an example. We don't need your mental mind games to escape the reality of natural phenomena...natural phenomena that after having been observed for over 150 yrs has given us an established law of science.

If you don't define your terms, I cannot provide a reply to your questions that addresses your point. So, how do you define "specificity" with regard to the waves and sand example?

There you go again. You like to play dodge ball, don't you? I would assume that an intelligent person like yourself would have looked up the word 'specificity' long ago and know very well what it means without me having to do your homework for you. Well, your answer is two clicks away on that keyboard you are using. Quote: "Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of _Biogenesis_ for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight." Thomas Huxley, 1870 at the THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE FOR 1870. http://www.readbooko...adOnLine/23102/ It seems that Darwins Bulldog did not have the same problem you have in defining life or distinguishing that which is living from non-living.

No. I won't give you the evolution of non-aerobic to aerobic respiration because no one knows exactly how it happened. I could provide a link to a website that provides one or two scenarios of how it could have happened along with some evidence. However, other creationists, to whom I have provide such links, simply say that those are simply imaginative stories and they wanted to be told the actual way that it happened. I have no reason to believe that your response would be different than theirs.

That's right. You don't know and neither does anyone else of your persuasion. The difference between you and I is that I don't establish my science on 'scenarios' that have no basis in reality. I do have direct, observational experience in the miraculous,with evidence, with witnesses on quite a few occasions. Why should I believe you and not my memory, my senses, my common sense, and the witnesses who saw those things with me through the years? All of your conjecture and doubts about the supernatural isn't going to change the reality of it.

Again with the insulting comments. Are you saying that if there were no life on this planet that the consumption of certain chemicals, that life consumes now, would remain the same?

I meant exactly what I said.You haven't used one bit of common sense logic in any statement on this board...so far. Now, where is your example of life that has generated from non-living matter? We are all still waiting.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users