Jump to content


Photo

Entropy


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

#161 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:39 AM

Furthermore, scientists have a model for abiogenesis. Yet they cannot create life in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Somehow this point eludes anti-creationists.

Just by chance (not under controlled conditions) they assume entropy was necessarily overcome, and this manifested itself when all the prerequisite chemicals for life just happened to be in the right place at the right time, in the right proportions, and under the right conditions just prior to being randomly smashed together to transform from dead matter into life.


They simply do not know how abiogenesis would work, so there is no way to describe the entropy increase or decrease involved in the different steps.

Claiming that 'they just assume' is a claim much like 'science is working on it'. It lacks credibility and content.

Randomly smashed together? Can you please link me to that model for abiogenesis you are describing here?

#162 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:13 AM

I realize it is an article of faith to you that accumulating benefits must have a limit, but there is no natural law to that effect. What could impose such a limit? Its kind of like saying that if I give you a penny a day ever day, you will never get a million dollars, no not even in a million years.


That statement is akin to saying that there is no natural law against the existence of leprechauns. Even after thousands of years of observation contradicts such things. It is not a leap of faith to reject ever increasing complexity and fitness, it is against all empirical data observed so far.

The ironic thing is that evolution pre dates Christianity by thousands of years, so acceptance of Christ must be because people witnessed his miracles and resurrection while the rest still cling to the old Hindu mythology of evolution.


Enjoy.

#163 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:26 AM

Randomly smashed together? Can you please link me to that model for abiogenesis you are describing here?


Of course everything randomly smashed together, and this is what believers in abiogenesis ASSUME. If the event is not random, then it is directed by intelligent design. Take your pick, there are no other choices here AND you can't have it both ways.

#164 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

Randomly smashed together? Can you please link me to that model for abiogenesis you are describing here?


Are you asserting that it was guided?

If so, by whom?


They simply do not know how abiogenesis would work,

This is because it isn't logically or scientifically feasible. The hypothesis of abiogenesis begs far more questions than it will ever answer.

For example:

From what and where did the materials spring

Logically and scientifically, how can life come from none life

Logically and scientifically, how can intelligence come from non- intelligence

#165 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 10 April 2012 - 11:49 PM

Rust is the reaction of di-oxide (a gas) with a solid, iron, to form iron-oxide. So you are actually combining a gas (higher entropy than a solid) and a solid, to result in a solid. You will have a decrease in entropy in your system.

4Fe + 3O(2) = 2Fe(2)O(3)

You were told wrong.



I've already provided you with the example of water which turns from gas to liquid to solid (decrease of entropy) as well as rust. But I guess any exothermic reaction will decrease the entropy of the system because of the enthalpy change being larger than the entropy change in the Gibbs equation.



"The natural state" is not something I need to contradict, now do I? If it were a law like the second law which does say that the overall entropy in the universe has to remain the same or increase, then I will gladly argue about it. However, what exactly is a natural state? What do you mean by decay? I'm sorry but this just seems like you are trying to use different terminology to make the same claims. And that terminology only allows for a broader meaning so I'm not going to get into this. I've already explained my case. I disagree that this 'natural state' can make any claims about evolution.




Aren't you aswering your own question here? There are basically two types of reactions: exothermic (like oxidation) and endothermic ones. Exothermic ones decrease the entropy of their involved atoms and release heat. Therefor the endothermic ones need to absorb that heat and increase their entropy in order for the second law to be valid (which it is) in the universe. Energy disperses and the second law specifies that this energy will be used for instance by reactions to form bonds like DNA does.



This is ionization of Fe, not oxidation. The complete formula, including the di-oxide looks different. I have found no information that ionization would increase entropy.


[i]

All processes do increase the overall entropy of the universe. That is correct. However individual processes don't have to do the same.

[i][b]

Indeed, and this is all correct however, there are 'pockets' in the universe where entropy can decrease. Take a living cell for instance. Schrodinger wrote an entire book about it and about negentropy. Simply put: if what you are claiming is true, then we would not be able to reproduce.



Did you read what I quoted any natural process that occurs spontaneously causes an overall increase in entropy. This is what is written about how reactions occur and I am much more inclined to believe what is published then what you claim to say. Unless you have ground breaking new evidence that defies the laws of thermodynamics then please present it here.

Hence the fact that spontaneous reactions increase entropy then it follows that the natural state of the universe is towards an increasing amount of entropy, thus increasing decay. Again if you have ground breaking new evidence to defy the laws of Thermodynamics then please present it here.

Therefore my point still stands, how can life "evolve" in a world that is naturally decaying over time. How can strictly natural processes defy the natural state of itself?

The only way you can stop this claim is to show how the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. This also applies to my new point below.


It does nothing to solve the dilemma that ordered energy is decreasing whereas random energy, (thus useless energy) is increasing. Hence a question I have put to the evolutionist is how did the universe become ordered in the first place when its natural tendency is to be random (and stay that way, since if the random useless energy could become ordered spontaneously then that would be a way to get "free energy"... Yet it also defies the laws of nature which the stuff I have quoted imparts.

I am sure the BB was random, (all explosions or such are) hence there would have been no order to begin with, with the new universe... Hence evolutionists believe that for a time the laws of Thermodynamics were temporarily broken or not in use, to allow ordered energy to spontaneously form naturally.

#166 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:39 AM

Did you read what I quoted any natural process that occurs spontaneously causes an overall increase in entropy. This is what is written about how reactions occur and I am much more inclined to believe what is published then what you claim to say. Unless you have ground breaking new evidence that defies the laws of thermodynamics then please present it here.


Yes, and I agreed that they actually DO cause an OVERALL increase in entropy. However the entropy of the rust for instance is decreased but the reaction will provide enough heat to cause an overall increase of entropy in the universe.

http://www.oberlin.e...EntropyRust.pdf
Here you can see the calculations for entropy.

I never actually said that the laws of thermodynamics were wrong. Nor did I provide any example that would break them.

Hence the fact that spontaneous reactions increase entropy then it follows that the natural state of the universe is towards an increasing amount of entropy, thus increasing decay. Again if you have ground breaking new evidence to defy the laws of Thermodynamics then please present it here.

Therefore my point still stands, how can life "evolve" in a world that is naturally decaying over time. How can strictly natural processes defy the natural state of itself?


Yes, you are correct. The second law is valid in the universe. The overall entropy increases. The amount of energy able to do work will run out. But nothing in thermodynamics nor nature says that the total increase of entropy has to be homogenous in the universe.

Life 'evolving' has nothing to do with entropy in thermodynamic processes. It could have something to do with Information theory but there's no second law in effect. There is no law prohibiting life to evolve, there's only your 'natural state of nature'. I wish you good luck trying to convince anyone with that argument.

How does your natural state explain gravity? Gravity causes objects to form from gas and thus decrease entropy locally but will increase the overall entropy in the universe.

It does nothing to solve the dilemma that ordered energy is decreasing whereas random energy, (thus useless energy) is increasing. Hence a question I have put to the evolutionist is how did the universe become ordered in the first place when its natural tendency is to be random (and stay that way, since if the random useless energy could become ordered spontaneously then that would be a way to get "free energy"... Yet it also defies the laws of nature which the stuff I have quoted imparts.


Ordered energy? o_O What's that?

I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the Big Bang theory and the formation of stars, planets etc. The answer to your question is described by those theories.

I'm sorry but I have no clue what you mean with the sentence in bold.

I am sure the BB was random, (all explosions or such are) hence there would have been no order to begin with, with the new universe... Hence evolutionists believe that for a time the laws of Thermodynamics were temporarily broken or not in use, to allow ordered energy to spontaneously form naturally.


The Big Bang ISN'T an explosion. I'm pretty sure I've already corrected you on this.

Depending on the model, it is either argued that the singularity was either a point of very low entropy (great symmetry) or a homogenous dense point of extreme temperatures and pressure. But the Big Bang model really only starts some time after the singularity because we cannot be sure about the singularity at this point. The further conclusion is that the volume of the universe is increasing, allowing for increasing values of the maximum entropy of the universe. Even today, there is some debate going on about the entropy in our universe (for instance what is happening with entropy states falling into a black hole). But to think that evolutionists or scientists think they can simply put those laws besides them, and assume whatever they want because, hey they are scientists, is entirely not true.

#167 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:18 AM

Of course everything randomly smashed together, and this is what believers in abiogenesis ASSUME. If the event is not random, then it is directed by intelligent design. Take your pick, there are no other choices here AND you can't have it both ways.


So you are proposing that believers in abiogenesis believe that chemicals in the correct quantities are randomly being smashed together could somehow create life?

Can you please provide any link or source that comes even close to the assumptions you are posting here? Because I have not encountered one single believer in abiogenesis that makes the assumptions you are posting here.

#168 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:22 AM

Are you asserting that it was guided?
If so, by whom?



No, I'm asserting that believers in abiogenesis in general believe that the chemicals weren't smashed together but involved in chemical reactions.

#169 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:26 AM



No, I'm asserting that believers in abiogenesis in general believe that the chemicals weren't smashed together but involved in chemical reactions.

Fair enough. But then again, since we are talking about mere "believers", they are proceeding on faith and can therefore not comment on the "smashed together" model either.

Having said that, it STILL begs the questions provided in the rest of post # 167


This is because it isn't logically or scientifically feasible. The hypothesis of abiogenesis begs far more questions than it will ever answer.

For example:

From what and where did the materials spring

Logically and scientifically, how can life come from none life

Logically and scientifically, how can intelligence come from non- intelligence

And these are a great bane in the side of the materialistic atheists.

#170 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:10 AM

Fair enough. But then again, since we are talking about mere "believers", they are proceeding on faith and can therefore not comment on the "smashed together" model either.



They probably say that the "smashed together" model would not be feasable for some reason but that's beside the point. My point is that this is not the model they believe in regardless whether or not the model can or cannot work, is impossible to prove or disprove, or at all logical.


This is because it isn't logically or scientifically feasible. The hypothesis of abiogenesis begs far more questions than it will ever answer.

For example:

From what and where did the materials spring

Logically and scientifically, how can life come from none life

Logically and scientifically, how can intelligence come from non- intelligence


Abiogenesis isn't about intelligence afaik, nor about where the materials came from. Other fields of science are studying those questions. But I agree that those questions need an answer. I'm not sure why you repeat it. I didn't express my opinion about it nor said anything to the contrary.

#171 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:33 AM

So you are proposing that believers in abiogenesis believe that chemicals in the correct quantities are randomly being smashed together could somehow create life?


Actually there's more to it. You conveniently reframed my argument, the original one that you had a problem with.

Just by chance (not under controlled conditions) they assume entropy was necessarily overcome, and this manifested itself when all the prerequisite chemicals for life just happened to be in the right place at the right time, in the right proportions, and under the right conditions just prior to being randomly smashed together to transform from dead matter into life.


Now, it appears that you have a problem with me stating "randomly being smashed together". Sorry if you don't like my little dig on this abiogenesis hypothesis. I see you like to use "chemical reactions" which is correct, but the meaning is the same.

No, I'm asserting that believers in abiogenesis in general believe that the chemicals weren't smashed together but involved in chemical reactions.


"Smashed together" got your attention.

Can you please provide any link or source that comes even close to the assumptions you are posting here? Because I have not encountered one single believer in abiogenesis that makes the assumptions you are posting here.


Here is the "Primordial Soup" 'Theory':

The Primordial Soup Theory states that Life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that forms amino acids, which then make proteins. This is suppose to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.



http://leiwenwu.trip...primordials.htm

There's your link to this common knowledge that you've requested.

The gist of my argument doesn't change whether I use "smashed together" or "chemical reactions". Amino acids are formed according to the Soup Hypothesis, I'm not arguing that.

So, making the change, we now have this:

Just by chance (not under controlled conditions) they assume entropy was necessarily overcome, and this manifested itself when all the prerequisite chemicals for life just happened to be in the right place at the right time, in the right proportions, and under the right conditions just prior to random chemical reactions which combined chemicals into amino acids, ultimately transforming dead matter into life.


But the bottom line is, this supposedly all happened, and it either happened by 100% chance or it was intelligently directed to happen. And the believers in abiogenesis believe it happened by chance (the ones who reject that God had anything to do with it), which is strange because scientists cannot replicate the feat in controlled laboratory experiments.

#172 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:25 AM

@ Remnant of the Abyss

Thank you for clarifying your post. It is ofcourse the 'smashed together' I have a problem with. It is quite different from chemical reactions or natural processes. It would imply that the people believing in abiogenesis thought some kind of force was involved (but that would seem weird to me). But if that's not what you meant, then I have no problem with your post.

But the bottom line is, this supposedly all happened, and it either happened by 100% chance or it was intelligently directed to happen. And the believers in abiogenesis believe it happened by chance (the ones who reject that God had anything to do with it), which is strange because scientists cannot replicate the feat in controlled laboratory experiments.


That's also exactly the reason why abiogenesis isn't a theory or even a hypothesis (?). Or why a decent study about the entropies involved cannot be made. They are studying cell structure, primitive cell mechanisms etc. in order to discover an easy way to create life (or a working cell) from basic material (not even restricted yet to the material that was present on the earth at that time).

I must agree that a guided process would be the best hypothesis (simplest) right now. But how would we study such a guided process or how would we formulate it and turn it into a theory? Is there any branch of creation sciences dedicated to this right now?

#173 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:51 AM



Fair enough. But then again, since we are talking about mere "believers", they are proceeding on faith and can therefore not comment on the "smashed together" model either.



They probably say that the "smashed together" model would not be feasable for some reason but that's beside the point. My point is that this is not the model they believe in regardless whether or not the model can or cannot work, is impossible to prove or disprove, or at all logical.

The entirety of the hypothesis is unfeasible Athelas, and that is the crux of the issue. I understand that you are merely commenting on points of interest ‘as you understand them’ in the case of abiogenesis, and that is your prerogative. I am basically countering those points as the term "smashed together" is just as good as any with such an absurd hypothesis.

It is not impossible to disprove abiogenesis, as it is illogical, irrational AND cannot be empirically proven via the scientific method. And the case against abiogenesis, at the very least, crushes the probability of said hypothesis on the physical, AND destroys it on the metaphysically logical level.


This is because it isn't logically or scientifically feasible. The hypothesis of abiogenesis begs far more questions than it will ever answer.

For example:

From what and where did the materials spring

Logically and scientifically, how can life come from none life

Logically and scientifically, how can intelligence come from non- intelligence



Abiogenesis isn't about intelligence afaik, nor about where the materials came from. Other fields of science are studying those questions. But I agree that those questions need an answer. I'm not sure why you repeat it. I didn't express my opinion about it nor said anything to the contrary.

Actually, abiogenesis IS about origins (the universe, life, intelligence) as the very proposal begs the questions, therefore you cannot separate one from the others. Further I repeat them, as they are relevant to the very issue of abiogenesis.

I didn’t say that you are in favor, or reject the hypothesis Athelas, I am merely pointing out the fallaciousness of the hypothesis. And I find it necessary to keep all the cards on the table, so as to easily refute misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or any other fallacious assertions (whether they be intentional or not).

#174 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:28 AM

[quote] name='Ron' timestamp='1334159513' post='83086']
The entirety of the hypothesis is unfeasible Athelas, and that is the crux of the issue. I understand that you are merely commenting on points of interest ‘as you understand them’ in the case of abiogenesis, and that is your prerogative. I am basically countering those points as the term "smashed together" is just as good as any with such an absurd hypothesis.

It is not impossible to disprove abiogenesis, as it is illogical, irrational AND cannot be empirically proven via the scientific method. And the case against abiogenesis, at the very least, crushes the probability of said hypothesis on the physical, AND destroys it on the metaphysically logical level.

Actually, abiogenesis IS about origins (the universe, life, intelligence) as the very proposal begs the questions, therefore you cannot separate one from the others. Further I repeat them, as they are relevant to the very issue of abiogenesis.

I didn’t say that you are in favor, or reject the hypothesis Athelas, I am merely pointing out the fallaciousness of the hypothesis. And I find it necessary to keep all the cards on the table, so as to easily refute misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or any other fallacious assertions (whether they be intentional or not).
[/quote]

Ron,

Over the years, this is what I have encountered with atheists/evolutionists. They want to skip the first two conundrums--conundrums that are impossible to overcome--and just make believe they are not there and go to step three. But this is like arguing that one can walk from California to Hawaii, pretending the Pacific Ocean is not there.

Step One: The universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law of Thermodynamics). The universe could not have always been here, because the useable amount of energy is decreasing and anything ordered is going to disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics). So if it could not have created itself from nothing and it could not have always been here, then Someone or Something outside of and prior to the universe had to have created it. There is no getting around or behind this unless one wants to dismiss two of the most tested and observed physical laws we have.

Step Two: Life came about all by itself by accident. But there are some problems with this. First, life can only come from life. The Law of Causality argues that the effect can't be greater than the cause. And when we look for a cause, we find that that cause had a prior cause. To account for all that exists, one must eventually find a Cause that is Uncaused that exists on its own. This Cause had to have always existed. Second, the atheist worldview can't account for or justify laws of logic, rational thought, morality, or any of the abstract concepts such as liberty, justice, dignity, emotion. Why? Because lifeless, reasonless, amoral matter can't give these immaterial things, since they are not composed of matter. They are not part of the physical univrse.

So, since they can't, and never will be able to, overcome these two dilemmas. they want to just pretend they don't exist. Before they try to convince me that evolution is possible, which it is not, I want them to explain to me where everything came from absent God? God exists because of the impossiblity of an alternative. But they are hoping against hope that someday, they will be able to explain why there is something instead of nothing. But what's sad is their worldview is an impossible scenario that they will never reconcile. The best we Christians can do is give them an uncomfortable intellectual kidney stone that will not pass until they accept Jesus Christ.

TeeJay

#175 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:35 PM

The entirety of the hypothesis is unfeasible Athelas, and that is the crux of the issue. I understand that you are merely commenting on points of interest ‘as you understand them’ in the case of abiogenesis, and that is your prerogative. I am basically countering those points as the term "smashed together" is just as good as any with such an absurd hypothesis.


Yeah, I don't care if you want to believe in an abiogenesis where you cook the atoms for thirty min in an oven and poor hot chocolate saus over it at the end, it is a matter of not misrepresenting the assumptions/beliefs of a group of people. Even if the hypothesis is absurd, there is no reason to twist it or overcomplicate it even if the absurdity of the hypothesis would remain the same. :wacko:

Also do not forget that you are losing credibility by such misrepresentations. It is like calling the Big Bang an explosion for instance. That's a rookie mistake. Certainly in the case of abiogenesis there is no need to do so, you can only do "harm" to yourself really.


It is not impossible to disprove abiogenesis, as it is illogical, irrational AND cannot be empirically proven via the scientific method. And the case against abiogenesis, at the very least, crushes the probability of said hypothesis on the physical, AND destroys it on the metaphysically logical level.

Actually, abiogenesis IS about origins (the universe, life, intelligence) as the very proposal begs the questions, therefore you cannot separate one from the others. Further I repeat them, as they are relevant to the very issue of abiogenesis.

I didn’t say that you are in favor, or reject the hypothesis Athelas, I am merely pointing out the fallaciousness of the hypothesis. And I find it necessary to keep all the cards on the table, so as to easily refute misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or any other fallacious assertions (whether they be intentional or not).


a-bio-genesis <_<

It is about getting life from non-life. It doesn't even need to be about OUR origin. It is the field of study that investigates different manners to get life from non-life. If they ever succeed, the question will be asked whether or not our origins were the same. But at this point it is like asking someone who can't even crawl to ride a bicycle.

And also, as I stated, we have fields of science that are investigating the questions you were asking about (origin of the universe, matter, intelligence etc). So in conclusion, there is no reason to couple that much weight to an absurd hypothesis.

#176 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:20 PM

[quote] name='Athelas' timestamp='1334176529' post='83092']
Yeah, I don't care if you want to believe in an abiogenesis where you cook the atoms for thirty min in an oven and poor hot chocolate saus over it at the end, it is a matter of not misrepresenting the assumptions/beliefs of a group of people. Even if the hypothesis is absurd, there is no reason to twist it or overcomplicate it even if the absurdity of the hypothesis would remain the same. :wacko:

Also do not forget that you are losing credibility by such misrepresentations. It is like calling the Big Bang an explosion for instance. That's a rookie mistake. Certainly in the case of abiogenesis there is no need to do so, you can only do "harm" to yourself really.



a-bio-genesis <_<

It is about getting life from non-life. It doesn't even need to be about OUR origin. It is the field of study that investigates different manners to get life from non-life. If they ever succeed, the question will be asked whether or not our origins were the same. But at this point it is like asking someone who can't even crawl to ride a bicycle.

And also, as I stated, we have fields of science that are investigating the questions you were asking about (origin of the universe, matter, intelligence etc). So in conclusion, there is no reason to couple that much weight to an absurd hypothesis.
[/quote]

Athelas, Why are you still arguing for a Big Bang? I already showed you in our posts that the Big Bang is not possible. Your only argument is that we call it an "explosion." I don't care whether you call in an "inflation." It is still not possible, for the First and Second Laws preclude it happening. You argue here that it's not about getting life from non-life. But it is. Lifeless matter can't give you what it does not have to give. If you wanted to borrow a lawn mower to cut your grass, you would first have to find a neighbor who has one to loan you. Right? Please read the following:


Origins of Life

How did life originate? There are only two possible answers to this question:

Life originated by natural processes.
Life was created.


Evolution posits that about 4 to 5 billion years ago the earth formed all by naturalistic processes. After a long, long time, chemicals began to form in the “primordial soup.” After more long, long periods of time, chemicals came together to form molecules. After more long, long periods of time, molecules bonded together to make a living cell. Evolutionary formula: Time plus chance = life. But Colossians 1:16 says, “For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him.”

A Biology Refresher

Atom is the basic unit of matter. Atoms like to bond together to make molecules (example of a specific arrangement of atoms is H2O or water).

Molecules can bond to make amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of life (specific arrangement). Without amino acids, no life can exist.

Amino acids bond to make proteins.

The Truth About the Miller Experiment

Miller’s objective was not to create life but rather to create the building blocks of life. In his experiment he tried to replicate the earth’s atmosphere as it was believed to be billions of years ago. He had an apparatus with a spark chamber, etc. He used gases such as methane, ammonia (he left out oxygen). Then he ignited electrical sparks to cause chemical reactions. And Miller did indeed create amino acids. So, some evolutionists are bragging why do we need a Creator God when we can do it ourselves. But some questions must be asked:

Why did Miller use the gases methane, ammonia, but no oxygen?
What type of amino acids did Miller get?


Miller left out oxygen because he knew that oxygen, while necessary to sustain life, destroys life. It destroys the molecular bond. But what does the scientific evidence tell us about the earth?

The only trend in recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined. Thaxton (Ph.D. chemistry) Bradley (Ph.D. Materials Science), Olsen (Ph.D. Geochemistry), “The Mystery of Life’s origin, 1992, p. 80

But let’s play Miller’s game. But if we take oxygen out of the atmosphere, we also take away the very important ozone. We all become crispy critters. The ultra-violate rays would fry us. So life can’t start with oxygen and life can’t survive without oxygen. But Miller did get amino acids

First there are about 2,000 different types of amino acids. But only 20 are used in life. Life is very selective. One wrong amino acid can ruin your day. Amino acids are left handed and right handed or mirror images of each other. But every amino acid in every protein in the body (and we have trillions) is lift handed. We don’t have a single right-handed amino acid in any protein in our body. All of life has left-handed amino acids in every protein. Miller ended up with 50 percent right- and left-handed amino acids. Every experiment ever done resulted in half and half left- and right-handed amino acids. Even if we start with all left handed amino acids, they all revert back to half right- and half left-handed amino acids.
[color="#000000"]The more we study this the more we know that we have to have a Creator. When we die, all our left-handed amino acids revert back o a mixture of left and right handed amino acids. If you rule out truth, then you have to accept a lie. In the absence of God, anything can be substituted in His place. But the argument goes on: “Given enough time, it can happen.” Is this a valid argument? Is it even a scientific argument? Think about it. Atheists don’t know how it happened, but then argue that given enough time it will happen. This is an arbitrary faith statement that should not be allowed.

TeeJay


#177 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:14 AM

Athelas, Why are you still arguing for a Big Bang? I already showed you in our posts that the Big Bang is not possible. Your only argument is that we call it an "explosion." I don't care whether you call in an "inflation." It is still not possible, for the First and Second Laws preclude it happening.


Oh so now you call it an 'explosion' instead of an explosion? That somehow makes up for your mistake? Inflation and explosions are not the same. If you persist to call it an explosion, you are only losing credibility like I stated to Ron. It is a mistake that takes about 5 minutes to investigate. If you do not even bother to do that, why would I assume you have researched anything else? <admin edit: mud-slinging is a type of
ad Hominem abusive. and will not be allowed in this forum, Further , dragging your mistake from one post to another only
exacerbates a bad situation by compounding your mistake> Ron

On the contrary, the first law and second law do not disprove the Big Bang in any way. It only does if you use the wrong version of the Big Bang where the universe came from nothing instead of a singularity, which would once again be a mistake that takes about 5 min to look up. I already granted you that the singularity isn't well known. In fact we cannot know much about it. But the theory most certainly does not propose the universe came from nothing.

I'm still reading your two post and I will reply to them. Just that I want to respect your work (took probably some time to write all that). And formulate a decent answer.

You argue here that it's not about getting life from non-life. But it is. Lifeless matter can't give you what it does not have to give. If you wanted to borrow a lawn mower to cut your grass, you would first have to find a neighbor who has one to loan you. Right? Please read the following:


You confuse me. I stated that abiogenesis is exactly that: getting life from non-life (or the research to do so).


First there are about 2,000 different types of amino acids. But only 20 are used in life. Life is very selective. One wrong amino acid can ruin your day. Amino acids are left handed and right handed or mirror images of each other. But every amino acid in every protein in the body (and we have trillions) is lift handed. We don’t have a single right-handed amino acid in any protein in our body. All of life has left-handed amino acids in every protein. Miller ended up with 50 percent right- and left-handed amino acids. Every experiment ever done resulted in half and half left- and right-handed amino acids. Even if we start with all left handed amino acids, they all revert back to half right- and half left-handed amino acids.


The (homo)chirality issue. Three words were enough to say what you wanted to say ;-)

This did pose a lot of problems but they are finding solutions for this problem. That's one of the good things about the research in the field of abiogenesis that even if it isn't at all possible, we are getting a lot of information regarding many different topics, including chirality of amino-acids. In fact, it almost seems like they are finding too many solutions (radioactive decay, starlight, polarized light, absorption by certain crystals) for this problem in order to pin it down to one cause. I'm not sure that chirality is really such a good argument against abiogenesis anymore.

The more we study this the more we know that we have to have a Creator. When we die, all our left-handed amino acids revert back o a mixture of left and right handed amino acids. If you rule out truth, then you have to accept a lie. In the absence of God, anything can be substituted in His place. But the argument goes on: “Given enough time, it can happen.” Is this a valid argument? Is it even a scientific argument? Think about it. Atheists don’t know how it happened, but then argue that given enough time it will happen. This is an arbitrary faith statement that should not be allowed.

TeeJay

I'm not a theist nor an atheist for a reason Teejay: that reason is because I'm sceptical towards both. What one side is asking the other, being conclusive emirical data, is also missing on the other side. There is simply no reason to accept either abiogenesis and macro-evolution nor Creation based on data alone, even though the truth is that we must've come from somewhere. We aren't eternal beings so we had an origin. The chirality issue was conclusive evidence once to dismiss abiogenesis. I must credit those people for coming back strong with a range of possible answers. That also tells me to be cautiounous to dismiss a possibility on the absense of evidence alone.

#178 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:14 AM



The entirety of the hypothesis is unfeasible Athelas, and that is the crux of the issue. I understand that you are merely commenting on points of interest ‘as you understand them’ in the case of abiogenesis, and that is your prerogative. I am basically countering those points as the term "smashed together" is just as good as any with such an absurd hypothesis.


Yeah, I don't care if you want to believe in an abiogenesis where you cook the atoms for thirty min in an oven and poor hot chocolate saus over it at the end, it is a matter of not misrepresenting the assumptions/beliefs of a group of people.

Athelas, it matters not one whit whether or not you “care” about someone else’s beliefs; because they are “beliefs” (i.e. faith statements). What matters if you can provide evidences/facts to back up your assertions, and you have failed to do so.

If an explanation (in this case abiogenesis) is based upon assumption, others assumptions cannot misrepresent them, because BOTH are based upon assumption. Further, if proponents of abiogenesis claim that chemicals came together to form life, and someone who rightly opposes such illogical nonsense uses the adjective “smashed” in front of the word “together” as a descriptor for the notion of the “mixing”* of these chemicals, the nonbeliever in abiogenesis has not committed any kind of misrepresentation. The may have simply placed more exuberance on the use of the adjective, but they correctly described the notion of the process that the abiogenesis believe is basically attempting to promulgate.

* Note: Mix - "to combine together: transitive verb to combine ingredients by putting them together or blending them to make a single new substance.

Conclusion: It matters not one whit if you like their descriptive usage of the adjective, as there was absolutly nothing wrong with said usage.


Even if the hypothesis is absurd, there is no reason to twist it or overcomplicate it even if the absurdity of the hypothesis would remain the same.


Once again, it was not at all twisted OR overcomplicated. If anything, it was oversimplified. In the context of the conversation, “smashed together” is an oversimplified version of a presupposed chemical reaction. And, in some cases, “smashed together” can be a very accurate descriptor. Further, since the abiogenesist has absolutely NO idea what happed, they have absolutely NO grounds to complain about the descriptor.


Also do not forget that you are losing credibility by such misrepresentations. It is like calling the Big Bang an explosion for instance. That's a rookie mistake. Certainly in the case of abiogenesis there is no need to do so, you can only do "harm" to yourself really.

The above is nothing more than an ad Hominem abusive, as I never claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion; thus rendering your fallacious use of logic here as a non sequitur.

Further, attacking my credibility and character is a type of name calling and mud-slinging; and Athelas, we don’t allow name calling and mud-slinging as a derisive device in this forum.

Consider this a warning; You may want to review the forum rules prior to posting any rebuttals in this thread specifically, and this forum in general.



It is not impossible to disprove abiogenesis, as it is illogical, irrational AND cannot be empirically proven via the scientific method. And the case against abiogenesis, at the very least, crushes the probability of said hypothesis on the physical, AND destroys it on the metaphysically logical level.

Actually, abiogenesis IS about origins (the universe, life, intelligence) as the very proposal begs the questions, therefore you cannot separate one from the others. Further I repeat them, as they are relevant to the very issue of abiogenesis.

I didn’t say that you are in favor, or reject the hypothesis Athelas, I am merely pointing out the fallaciousness of the hypothesis. And I find it necessary to keep all the cards on the table, so as to easily refute misunderstanding, misrepresentations, or any other fallacious assertions (whether they be intentional or not).



a-bio-genesis

It is about getting life from non-life. It doesn't even need to be about OUR origin.


In your OPINION, it may not “NEED to be about OUR origin”, but it is indeed about ALL origin, because ANY origin affects OUR origin.

I may remind you of the definition of genesis:

gen·e·sis (jn-ss)

NOUN:
pl. gen·e·ses (-sz)
The coming into being of something; the origin.
(Merriam Webster)


It is the field of study that investigates different manners to get life from non-life. If they ever succeed, the question will be asked whether or not our origins were the same. But at this point it is like asking someone who can't even crawl to ride a bicycle.

And also, as I stated, we have fields of science that are investigating the questions you were asking about (origin of the universe, matter, intelligence etc).

The supposition “Life from non-life” is absurd at best, and therefore begs better questions than the ones you posited above. For example; what comes from nothing?


So in conclusion, there is no reason to couple that much weight to an absurd hypothesis.

Which begs the questions;

If we aren’t to “couple that much weight to an absurd hypothesis”, then why are you doing so with such vigor?
If we aren’t to “couple that much weight to an absurd hypothesis”, then why are you using fellacious logic and name calling with such vigor?


#179 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:45 AM

In fact, it almost seems like they are finding too many solutions (radioactive decay, starlight, polarized light, absorption by certain crystals) for this problem in order to pin it down to one cause. I'm not sure that chirality is really such a good argument against abiogenesis anymore.


Can you provide links? Your confidence has piqued my curiosity.

#180 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:22 AM


If I hurt your feelings with what I wrote or if you feel insulted, then I did not acchieve my goal


Ummm, No… You didn't hurt my feelings, what you did was violate forum rules; two of them in that post alone (complaining about forum moderating in this one as well). Keeping in mind that you have been warned a number of times previously.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users