God does nor exist nor do gods exist!

Page 13 of 15 [ 226 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Dec 2014, 5:22 am

Janissy wrote:

It's not so impossible. It requires specific conditions but those conditions existed. Thus Earth is sometimes called The Goldilocks Planet.

A classic example of what's called "circular reasoning". It goes like this:
Assume your proposition (in this case, that proteins (can, do or did) spontaneously form by random chance); therefore assume that the atmosphere was conducive to that;
and also assume that reaction conditions (temperature, pressure, vessels, catalysts, volcanos, lightning etc. etc.) were/are present;

then that "proves" the original proposition... even if genuinely scientific observations, deductions and experiments say that it's impossible.

But your problems are only beginning. Even if you could synthesise a simple protein by cleverly contrived non-random chance it couldn't account for the untold thousands of very complex and highly specialised proteins that make up the smallest strand of DNA.

Think about that... I've got other things to deal with.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Dec 2014, 5:29 am

AspieOtaku wrote:

Think we should put the old bugger out of its misery with facts?

Give it a try if you think it will work.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Dec 2014, 7:26 am

AspieOtaku wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

AspieOtaku wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Very nice description of the action of soap, Arty.

If you are claiming (as you lot invariably do) that "evolution" is powered by an input of energy from the Sun then let's speed up the process by putting a lab rat into an electric arc (plenty of externally supplied energy (light and heat)) and turn it into a super-smart spaceman. I contend that all you'll get is a vaporised lab-rat.

Order is a serious business. It's not just a blind, random, haphazard input of energy... it is the product of intellect and will as well. Any practical home manager will affirm that a bomb (that releases much energy in a short time) will not contribute anything to her desire for order in her domain. (Mothers and wives are wonderful things for demanding and perpetuating order. Civilisation could not exist without them).

You can put up as many figures as you like concerning the heat/light coming from the Sun. It will not ever cause something that does not exist to cause itself to exist.

Really is this the best you can do defending your assertion that entropy falsifies evolution, really? I thought you had been doing this for years and were going to "cut the legs off" our arguments. Instead you fall back to ridiculous statements and nonsense. I see like so many other uninformed creationists you bring up the canard of random and haphazard in relation to evolution, really, you still have not learnt enough in your "years of arguing against evolution" that this concept is erroneous and very easily pulled apart. Like I said in a previous post.

PATHETIC

It seems old Davy has seemed to paint himself into a corner mate!

Yep to use his own cat and pigeons metaphor, his premises are rather like a decrepit, old, morbidly obese cat whose teeth and claws are worn away, suffering the indignity of pigeons pecking grain from the top of its head, whilst it vainly tries to swat them away.

Think we should put the old bugger out of its misery with facts? Or shall we be cruel bastards and relish in his miserable struggle?

Both you and I find no joy in wilful, delusional stupidity, at every turn both of us try to inform and persuade by way of rational reasoning, backed up by evidence. Personally I do not relish in the wanton misrepresentation of scientific discovery and knowledge and I get really pissed off when these people continue to refuse to accept the known facts and in doing so try to corral the ignorant into believing them. worse still they abuse the minds of the young with their lies. So yes I wish we could end the life of the metaphorical cat.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Dec 2014, 7:32 am

Oldavid wrote:

AspieOtaku wrote:

Think we should put the old bugger out of its misery with facts?

Give it a try if you think it will work.

Unfortunately we don't. The only "facts" you will ever accept are either ones you make up, or the occasional scientific theory that by way of your warped logic seems to you to fit your ridiculous ideology.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Dec 2014, 7:50 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

AspieOtaku wrote:

Think we should put the old bugger out of its misery with facts?

Give it a try if you think it will work.

I've not claimed any ideology other than science and reason. Your ideology cannot tolerate either.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Dec 2014, 7:54 am

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

16 Dec 2014, 8:21 am

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

It's not so impossible. It requires specific conditions but those conditions existed. Thus Earth is sometimes called The Goldilocks Planet.

The information about early earth enviroment preceded the experiment. Miller and Urey didn't design the flask enviroment to be conducive to making amino acids. They designed it to mimic what the geological sciences said was the early earth enviroment. They didn't even realize that amino acids had been made. They were testing the hypothesis that organic compounds would be made from the inorganic precursors present. This hypothesis was correct, making the experiment seminal and historic so the flask was preserved. The experiment was done in 1952 and the flask stayed sealed for over 50 years until it was re-opened and re-examined in 2007 after Miller's death. This re-examination showed amino acids (detection techniques advanced in 50 years).

Quote:

then that "proves" the original proposition... even if genuinely scientific observations, deductions and experiments say that it's impossible.

The experiment has been succesfully repeated many times with tweaks to the flask enviroment as geologists learn more about early earth.

Quote:

But your problems are only beginning. Even if you could synthesise a simple protein by cleverly contrived non-random chance it couldn't account for the untold thousands of very complex and highly specialised proteins that make up the smallest strand of DNA.

Think about that... I've got other things to deal with.

It's weirdly simple.
adenine, guanine,cytosine, thymine

You wouldn't think that so much information could be stored in just four little nucleotide bases but it's all in the order they are arranged. Look how much information computers can store just by arranging 0 and 1

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

16 Dec 2014, 8:57 am

Janissy wrote:

I like the weirdly simple bit; so many things are just that.

However, you can break it down even further... so much information can be stored in various arrangements of the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, blah blah, etc. etc. Your problem is that such things do not and cannot exist other than in a living organism. 0's and 1's in a computer are an invention of intelligence that means or does something for a purpose.

I will contend that vastly more complex systems that comprise the Universe are also an invention of intelligence for a purpose.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

16 Dec 2014, 9:28 am

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Quote:

Your problem is that such things do not and cannot exist other than in a living organism.

I gave that last sentence its own quote brackets because it's not true. RNA can be created experimentally in the absence of life.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ ... 9.471.html

Quote:

Although Sutherland has shown that it is possible to build one part of RNA from small molecules, objectors to the RNA-world theory say the RNA molecule as a whole is too complex to be created using early-Earth geochemistry. "The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry. The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth," says Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University.

This^^^ was the substance of your original objection.

Sutherland counters:

Quote:

Sutherland points out that the sequence of steps he uses is consistent with early-Earth scenarios — those involving methods such as heating molecules in water, evaporating them and irradiating them with ultraviolet light. And breaking RNA's synthesis down into small, laboratory-controlled steps is merely a pragmatic starting point, he says, adding that his team also has results showing that they can string nucleotides together, once they have formed. "My ultimate goal is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."

But before you say that this points to the need for intelligent guidance (as you did) note what Shapiro is exactly objecting to:

Quote:

Shapiro sides with supporters of another theory of life's origins – that because RNA is too complex to emerge from small molecules, simpler metabolic processes, which eventually catalysed the formation of RNA and DNA, were the first stirrings of life on Earth.

He isn't saying that this level of organization needs an intelligent guiding hand. He's saying there is an intermediate step not present (but still naturally occuring) in the experiment.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

16 Dec 2014, 9:31 am

Oldavid wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Ok Entropy. I really did not think you were going to turn into a creationist, I had hoped your views were more deistic rather than theistic. But oh well. first up lets look at the threee classes of a thermodynamic system

i. A closed system is a system that engages in exchanges of energy with the surroundings, but does not engage in exchange of matter with the surroundings

ii. An isolated system is a system that engages in no exchanges of energy or matter with the surroundings

iii. An isolated system is a system that engages in no exchanges of energy or matter with the surroundings

As far as we can tell Isolated system most likely do not exist, and we clearly live in an open system which receives more useful energy than gets turned into non useful (ie turned into heat and sound etc) This energy not only come to us in the energy eg the sun it also comes in the form of matter eg Meteorites.

The small amount of energy harnessed by the living systems on this planet is sufficient to increase complexity over time. Rigorous papers have been written on the subject since 1922 I would provide links but David I doubt you will even look at them let alone read them.

Anyhow off to work, will continue this later

Orrite. Let's try to be more specific about what entropy is. As in the Second Law of Thermodynamics expression of entropy it is the tendency of order toward chaos and the tendency for potential to be dissipated.

Nothing will happen in nature unless there is a process from a higher potential to a lower potential. All our machines and natural phenomena only work because of that. Even a thunderstorm is ultimately a dissipation of energy from the Sun that is collected in the atmosphere. Even the Sun is "using up" her potential by dissipating enormous amounts of matter and energy into space. Nature runs on entropy.

Order is more interesting "stuff" as it a metaphysical "thing". Any wonderfully diligent home manager will tell you that disorder and chaos happen automatically and naturally, and that it takes constant effort, intellect and will on her part to restore or maintain order. Nature (gradually) "eats up" and dissipates order that can only be created by the intellect to conceive it, the power to do it and the will to want it.

(There, that should be another cat in the pigeon coop).

That process is called evolution. No intelligence required. Crystals are more orderly than the elements that make them. So are snowflakes. Life arguably doesn't change the total amount of order in a system, in that life produces waste products and poisons like oxygen.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

16 Dec 2014, 10:28 am

Oldavid wrote:

I've not claimed any ideology other than science and reason. Your ideology cannot tolerate either.

Claimed, yet thus far failed to demonstrate.

We can only judge your ideology on the merits of your posts, which have been unscientific and unreasoned.

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

16 Dec 2014, 2:51 pm

adifferentname wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

I've not claimed any ideology other than science and reason. Your ideology cannot tolerate either.

Claimed, yet thus far failed to demonstrate.

We can only judge your ideology on the merits of your posts, which have been unscientific and unreasoned.

Davy is off once again to answers in genesis to try and make more failed claims.https://answersingenesis.org/ LOL

_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList

Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

16 Dec 2014, 3:22 pm

Oldavid wrote:

... so much information can be stored in various arrangements of the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, blah blah, etc. etc.

When you get right down to it, though, all of these are composed of the same positively and negatively charged particles.

You know...like 1 and 0.

To me, the more magnificent we find the universe to be, the weirder it seems to go on pretending that it was created by a Middle Eastern pedophile who demanded we cut off parts of the penises of little boys.

A more noble vision is to be found in the tangled webs of particle physics, which are sounding more like actual magic every day. The difference is that it's actually based on valid empirical science.

Last edited by Persimmonpudding on 16 Dec 2014, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Dec 2014, 3:28 pm

I suspect this might actually be the case. He will go there asking for help to debunk good evidential science and come back with evidence from good evidential science that he and his cronies have forcibly twisted and molded to suit there infantile religious dogma.

Unfortunately its lIke Ken Ham said when asked a question at the end of a debate with Bill Nye, to paraphrase the question and the answer "what would make you change your mind" he answered "Nothing, because I believe in scripture and no knowledge can trump it"

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Dec 2014, 3:37 pm

Persimmonpudding wrote:

A more noble vision is to be found in the tangled webs of particle physics, which are sounding more like actual magic every day. The difference is that it's actually based on valid empirical science.

It is interesting you would use this analogy with magic, I am reading a book on the history of science in antiquity to 1700, and during the scientific revolution of the renaissance this is exactly what magic was seen as, ie the magic of the natural world, and understanding this magic to further knowledge. I also find it astounding that for centruies theologians would accept that if natural philosophy showed scripture to be wrong then it was scripture that should be altered, St Thomas Aquinas is a prime example. ANd yet here we are with the full knowledge of scientific discoverys literally at our fingertips and we are debating fools who would deny all knowledge in favour of their "common sense" belief.

On common sense I like this quotation by a person Oldavid would no doubt describe as an old fool who had no idea what he was talking about;

Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen

A. Einstein

Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

16 Dec 2014, 4:01 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Persimmonpudding wrote:

Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen

A. Einstein

The age at which most people stop developing either morally or intellectually.

Page 13 of 15 [ 226 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Jump to:

God does nor exist nor do gods exist! Post Reply New Topic

God does nor exist nor do gods exist!