Jump to content


Photo

Two Giant Stop Signs Against Evolution


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

#121 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

They're not "sitting back". They're working in labs. Why would they be doing that if there was "no reason"?

They shouldn't have to be working in labs. They should only have to watch nature carefully. Figure it out.

#122 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

They shouldn't have to be working in labs. They should only have to watch nature carefully. Figure it out.


Posted Image So scientists shouldn't work in labs at all?

#123 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:49 PM

Posted Image So scientists shouldn't work in labs at all?


Adept at missing the point, aren't you? But I am not going to lead you by the hand for you would just jerk your hand away.

#124 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 04 July 2012 - 08:21 PM

He means that in order to get evidence of a supposedly natural process you should gather the evidence in nature, otherwise with intervention from the scientists then it cannot be considered a fully natural process since some outside intervention was required...

I and others have already explained this before... Perhaps re-read the thread so you don't keep on addressing the same points that have been covered

#125 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:49 AM

He means that in order to get evidence of a supposedly natural process you should gather the evidence in nature, otherwise with intervention from the scientists then it cannot be considered a fully natural process since some outside intervention was required..


That isn't how science works. Remember the predictions that you've been harping about? How can you test predictions under controlled conditions except in the lab?

#126 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:56 AM

"That isn't how science works. Remember the predictions that you've been harping about? How can you test predictions under controlled conditions except in the lab?"

Controlled conditions? They need to keep their hands OFF the steering wheel and let nature do it without assumptions about a 'pre-biotic' world they know nothing about. Fat chance.

But since they know that nature won't cooperate they will not keep their grubby hands off that steering wheel. Miller didn't.

#127 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 05 July 2012 - 10:18 AM

"That isn't how science works. Remember the predictions that you've been harping about? How can you test predictions under controlled conditions except in the lab?"

Controlled conditions? They need to keep their hands OFF the steering wheel and let nature do it without assumptions about a 'pre-biotic' world they know nothing about. Fat chance.

But since they know that nature won't cooperate they will not keep their grubby hands off that steering wheel. Miller didn't.


Exactly what I would have said. Each time a scientist interferes it defies the controlled conditions, (since if you are testing for something 100% natural I doubt having a scientist there to alter things would be part of that 100% natural)

#128 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:39 AM

Each time a scientist interferes it defies the controlled conditions...


What? Without a scientist, there are no controlled conditions. How do you think we test the effects of drugs? By using a "control" group that gets a placebo instead of the real drug. Observing those who don't get the drug is every bit as important as observing those who do.

You can't do science without isolating different aspects to see which aspects are significant.

#129 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:00 AM

Personally, I think we're done here, gentlemen.

#130 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 05 July 2012 - 05:57 PM

What? Without a scientist, there are no controlled conditions. How do you think we test the effects of drugs? By using a "control" group that gets a placebo instead of the real drug. Observing those who don't get the drug is every bit as important as observing those who do.

You can't do science without isolating different aspects to see which aspects are significant.


Shakes head... You do have a habit of cutting quotes and taking them out of context. If you read and understood all of what I said then you will see that this reply is very very silly.



"Each time a scientist interferes it defies the controlled conditions, (since if you are testing for something 100% natural I doubt having a scientist there to alter things would be part of that 100% natural)"


This point has been stated by myself MANY times here and on other threads, if you still do not understand I will try again.



Abiogenesis is claimed to be a solely natural process

therefore NO human intervention is allowed since that would tamper with the validity of the experiment- once someone interferes its not a solely natural process anymore


AFTER the initial "proof of concept" THEN they can modify things to see how it occured. However in the proof of concept stage, to verify if this reaction actually occurs there is to be no human intervention. Yes we can modify the settings BEFORE the experiment, however once it begins there are to be no further changes.

#131 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:40 AM

AFTER the initial "proof of concept" THEN they can modify things to see how it occured. However in the proof of concept stage, to verify if this reaction actually occurs there is to be no human intervention. Yes we can modify the settings BEFORE the experiment, however once it begins there are to be no further changes.


1. There are no man-made reactions. They're all natural.

2. Are you aware of the "observer effect"? We can't observe anything, no matter how natural it is, without effecting it. An obvious example is a thermometer. When you put a thermometer in water, the water heats the thermometer and the thermometer cools the water. There are no completely detatched observations.

#132 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 06 July 2012 - 12:57 PM

1. There are no man-made reactions. They're all natural.

2. Are you aware of the "observer effect"? We can't observe anything, no matter how natural it is, without effecting it. An obvious example is a thermometer. When you put a thermometer in water, the water heats the thermometer and the thermometer cools the water. There are no completely detatched observations.


Sigh....You've created red herrings again....

You are claiming something as occurring all by itself, in that it is self-forming..... Now how can you claim it to be self-forming if a scientist is required to alter the environment etc?? It totally defies the premise and (as I have said repeatedly) demonstrates the requirement of intelligence for the formation of life.




Another way of explaining it is this... Was there scientists available to alter things in the origin of the first cell?

(I assume you will say no)

Then why would testing for abiogenesis be any different? Why add in something that wasn't there? In otherwords you want to stack the deck, to add scientists altering things to be more favourable.

#133 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:29 PM

You are claiming something as occurring all by itself, in that it is self-forming..... Now how can you claim it to be self-forming if a scientist is required to alter the environment etc??


The scientist isn't "required". He simply sets up different sets of conditions to see what each produces. If the same conditions occur in nature, the same results will occur.

Then why would testing for abiogenesis be any different? Why add in something that wasn't there? In otherwords you want to stack the deck, to add scientists altering things to be more favourable.


They have to remove as much of their influence as possible from the outcome but it's true that they can never remove all of it. They're doing their best to unstack the deck..

#134 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 06 July 2012 - 08:48 PM

The scientist isn't "required". He simply sets up different sets of conditions to see what each produces. If the same conditions occur in nature, the same results will occur.



They have to remove as much of their influence as possible from the outcome but it's true that they can never remove all of it. They're doing their best to unstack the deck..



And that is exactly what we have been trying to put forward....... (Seriously I've been saying this since the first post I made here). Create an environment and leave it be, just watch, no intervention at all ever... No pretend "lightning strikes" that are a mere fraction of the electrical potential of actual lightning (Miller)... No changing chemical compositions mid-way or removing things midway or intervening in any way shape or form.



"Abiogenesis is claimed to be a solely natural process

therefore NO human intervention is allowed since that would tamper with the validity of the experiment- once someone interferes its not a solely natural process anymore


AFTER the initial "proof of concept" THEN they can modify things to see how it occured. However in the proof of concept stage, to verify if this reaction actually occurs there is to be no human intervention. Yes we can modify the settings BEFORE the experiment, however once it begins there are to be no further changes"-
post# 130





"Exactly what I would have said. Each time a scientist interferes it defies the controlled conditions, (since if you are testing for something 100% natural I doubt having a scientist there to alter things would be part of that 100% natural)"- post# 127





"otherwise with intervention from the scientists then it cannot be considered a fully natural process since some outside intervention was required...

I and others have already explained this before... Perhaps re-read the thread so you don't keep on addressing the same points that have been covered"- post# 124





From post 4, my very first post on this thread.....

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

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

The only way abiogenesis can be proven is if they observed an unguided, unthinking process create life without outside intervention.. Once outside intervention is used then that infers "the hand of God" so to speak since the evolutionist claims NO outside intervention, only nature."-
post# 4

#135 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 July 2012 - 07:24 AM

They're not "sitting back". They're working in labs. Why would they be doing that if there was "no reason"?

Ringo, have you read on the process of the self replicating RNA molecule?

1. There is intelligent isolation of the proper RNA subunits.
2. The RNA subunits are taken from cells, they are not constructed from raw nuecleic acids.

Just taking this alone,how do you suppose things just happened to fall together anywhere on earth? Where and how would the proper concentration and isolation of RNA subunits come from?

You're basically saying something complex came from spontaneous chemical reactions without any intelligent seperation, or guidance. If it were possible for it to happen spontaneously, then we should see it repeating itself in nature, just like any ohter spontaneous reation. Can you give us another observed series of spontaneous reactions which happen as rarely as this? The whole line of thinking is a ruse.

Contrarily, If you read the first chapter of Genesis, you see where God separates the light from darkness, waters from land, etc. This is the most basic principle of chemistry, or many sciences. You have to seperate and isolate, before you have proper constituents for either study or construction.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#136 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:15 AM

Ringo, in the preceeding post, so that you don't accuse me of arguement from authority, I made the reasoned arguement that continued isolation of proper constituents requires intelligent guidance. Here is more confirmation of that point.

Additionally, a given RNA molecule in the past might have survived longer than it can today. Ultraviolet light can cause RNA to polymerize while at the same time breaking down other types of organic molecules that could have the potential of causing the breakdown of RNA, suggesting that RNA may have been a relatively common substance on early Earth.[citation needed] This aspect of the theory is still untested and is based on a constant concentration of sugar-phosphate molecules.

Okay, we're going to break this down, before I get to the point here.

1. There is so much rubbish to clear to get to the point, showing that this whole statement is unfounded. First, there is no citation given on the premise of ultraviolet light causing RNA to polymerize (come together).

2. Second, there is data to the contrary. The following quote is under harmful effects section of ultraviolet light at Wiki.

Degradation of polymers, pigments and dyes

Many polymers used in consumer products are degraded by UV light, and need addition of UV absorbers to inhibit attack, especially if the products are exposed to sunlight. The problem appears as discoloration or fading, cracking, and, sometimes, total product disintegration if cracking has proceeded sufficiently. The rate of attack increases with exposure time and sunlight intensity.
It is known as UV degradation, and is one form of polymer degradation. Sensitive polymers include thermoplastics, such as polypropylene, polyethylene, and poly(methyl methacrylate) as well as speciality fibers like aramids. UV absorption leads to chain degradation and loss of strength at sensitive points in the chain structure.


This confirms Gilbo's statement about radiation.

Okay now finally check the last statement... This aspect of the theory is still untested and is based on a constant concentration of sugar-phosphate molecules.

Do you understand the ramifications of this statement. The premise requires a CONSTANT concentration of sugar phosphate molecules. Where does the properly chiral, properly bonded ribose--phosphate (which form RNA's backbone) molecules come from? They would have to be isolated, with no degradation under radiation, all the while the radiation destroys potentially contaminating molecules, and polymers.

What a RUSE!
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#137 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:49 PM

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



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

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

It would seem that you are saying that the expansion of the universe is causing an overall energy gradient. Is there an experiment we could perform to demostrate this energy differential? Also how can you expand anything without energy? From where is this energy coming? It can not be from the energy gradient coming from the expansion, or you are saying the gradient is causing the expansion rather than the expansion causing the gradient. Therefore it seems there is unaccounted for energy.

Furthermore, the discovery of expansion was confirmed by measuring the movement of stars and galaxies. These are non-empty space, so how do you measure empty space without them.

Finally, this discussion has little to do with the OP, as it was on abiogenesis, which is a chemical and biological problem, not physics.

#138 miles

miles

    Banned

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

Posted 10 July 2012 - 08:15 PM

It would seem that you are saying that the expansion of the universe is causing an overall energy gradient. Is there an experiment we could perform to demostrate this energy differential? Also how can you expand anything without energy? From where is this energy coming? It can not be from the energy gradient coming from the expansion, or you are saying the gradient is causing the expansion rather than the expansion causing the gradient. Therefore it seems there is unaccounted for energy.

Furthermore, the discovery of expansion was confirmed by measuring the movement of stars and galaxies. These are non-empty space, so how do you measure empty space without them.

Finally, this discussion has little to do with the OP, as it was on abiogenesis, which is a chemical and biological problem, not physics.

http://en.wikipedia....al_fluctuations are examples of measurable variances in the matter/energy density of the universe that are consistent with inflation. There's also the fact that as the early universe expanded and cooled down, atoms were able to form (it would have previously been too hot for atoms to stay intact) which allows chemical and nuclear reactions as a source of energy. The cause of inflation is still under investigation. Dark energy is the name we give to the force behind the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

The first part of the OP was about physics and the 1st law. The discussion on the second law was started by the original poster as part of a discussion on why the formation of the universe from vacuum doesn't violate the first law.

#139 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 July 2012 - 09:16 PM

It would seem that you are saying that the expansion of the universe is causing an overall energy gradient. Is there an experiment we could perform to demostrate this energy differential? Also how can you expand anything without energy? From where is this energy coming? It can not be from the energy gradient coming from the expansion, or you are saying the gradient is causing the expansion rather than the expansion causing the gradient. Therefore it seems there is unaccounted for energy.

Furthermore, the discovery of expansion was confirmed by measuring the movement of stars and galaxies. These are non-empty space, so how do you measure empty space without them.

Finally, this discussion has little to do with the OP, as it was on abiogenesis, which is a chemical and biological problem, not physics.


There is no actual experiment that can be done, it is merely a product of the mind, (hence why I didn't respond because whist even if it does exist we cannot make use of it hence it is a red herring since in the end random heat energy lost via entropy cannot be reused.

If Miles wishes to claim it can be reused I would ask him / her to produce the device which would make it possible.

Consider that the mechanism of the device would require it to be constantly placed on the edge of the universe as to have the highest gradient potential possible, this in and of itself is an impossible feat, it is ridiculous.

#140 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 July 2012 - 09:20 PM

http://en.wikipedia....al_fluctuations are examples of measurable variances in the matter/energy density of the universe that are consistent with inflation. There's also the fact that as the early universe expanded and cooled down, atoms were able to form (it would have previously been too hot for atoms to stay intact) which allows chemical and nuclear reactions as a source of energy. The cause of inflation is still under investigation. Dark energy is the name we give to the force behind the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

The first part of the OP was about physics and the 1st law. The discussion on the second law was started by the original poster as part of a discussion on why the formation of the universe from vacuum doesn't violate the first law.


How so... Starting with NO ENERGY and then ending with ENERGY means that energy has been created which does defy the 1st law, there is no way you can dodge around this. If you claim a naturalistic beginning of the universe from absolute nothing then you are breaking the 1st law no matter what you claim.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users