|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Apr 27, 2024 3:24:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Apr 27, 2024 3:30:16 GMT
There's no way Tucker Carlson is not just trolling and laughing at himself! He knows very well what he's saying is absolutely insane! ROFLBOMBER!!!
|
|
|
Post by furor teutonicus on Apr 27, 2024 5:29:56 GMT
It has to be explained to them in ways they cannot challenge.LOL You are serious? You make up this dumb shit hoping your audience is as dumbas you and think you are a genius for saying gobbledegook they can't understand. Whatever floats your boat. It seems your inability to discern intelligeng discourse hid the fact that I criticised Intelligent design and pointed out (as others also did) that abiogenesis is not evolution and bringing it up is little more than a deflection from discussing real evolution.
I am not accustomed to my opponents in anonymous discussion boards making much sense. I have to guess what they are doing.
Abiogenesis does not explain the origin of life. You seem as though you are trying say, "evolution does not explain the origin of life, abiogenesis does that." But it still does not do any such thing.
"In biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process."
So yes, abiogenesis absolutely does explain the origin of life from non living matter, that's the whole scope of this theory. And you don't have to reduce it to our planet. Could happen anywhere out there and some of that just happened to bounce into us.
Does not mean abiogenesis proves the origin of life. But with what we know today, what happens for example in CERN, where they manage to create matter from nothing (=light radiation), I would say this is far more likely than something more mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 27, 2024 10:47:46 GMT
I am not accustomed to my opponents in anonymous discussion boards making much sense. I have to guess what they are doing. Abiogenesis does not explain the origin of life. You seem as though you are trying say, "evolution does not explain the origin of life, abiogenesis does that." But it still does not do any such thing.
"In biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process." So yes, abiogenesis absolutely does explain the origin of life from non living matter, that's the whole scope of this theory. And you don't have to reduce it to our planet. Could happen anywhere out there and some of that just happened to bounce into us. Does not mean abiogenesis proves the origin of life. But with what we know today, what happens for example in CERN, where they manage to create matter from nothing (=light radiation), I would say this is far more likely than something more mysterious. Your "process of increasing complexity" is in violation of the known laws of science. No, it is not the "prevailing scientific hypothesis" because actual scientists can remember the laws of science. It is the "prevailing hypothesis" of mentally retarded atheist kids playing with computers on the internet, kids who cannot be expected to understand the laws of science. You are correct that abiogenesis does not "prove" the origin of life. It doesn't even begin to explain it. Notice it got stopped at step 1. I am not seeing the point of admitting it requires a sort of a miracle while denying the existence of a god. If you are going to admit phenomena with miraculous properties what is the point of denying there could be a god? This might be a shock to you, but not everyone believes every report from CERN. It doesn't mean their skepticism is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 27, 2024 11:04:00 GMT
You need to get out more. The real world does not share attitudes. Did you know there are "Catholic" hospitals where the nurses are nuns? And, ladies and gentlemen, there it is, a person who firmly believes that only one, science or religion, can be right and the other must be wrong. You didn't think we would find anyone that stupid? Maybe this will help. Suppose people have to decide whether to get a lawn sprinkler, a bird feeder, or a badminton court. Can science help them decide? Absolutely not. In fact science is utterly incapable of addressing most issues in politics. There is an art to life and religion is that art.
Whoa, we are not even talking about the same subject and you are attacking me because you don’t understand me. Suppose people have to decide whether to get a lawn sprinkler, a bird feeder, or a badminton court. Can science help them decide? No, however the same thought process goes into science as choosing a new bird feeder. It’s called reason. You would not consult the Bible or pray to God to help pick out a lawn sprinkler, you’d consult the advertising, compare the other products the manufacturer, gather information from folks you know what lawn sprinkler they think is the best for the money, or you like how it looks. Science is about reasoning out a problem. In fact science is utterly incapable of addressing most issues in politics.Science doesn’t legislate, however scientists are consulted by politicians when it is relevant to the policy. There is an art to life and religion is that art. Before science became modernized during the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Reason, the number Zero was considered blasphemy by the Church. Scientists back then were called alchemists and they were always at risk from the Church as daring to the speak the mind of God. Religion is not an Art. It may use art, but it a de facto social machine. You know about as much about art and religion as you do science. You need to stay out of the major league fields. Science is right only when it delivers the goods, religion as the spokes organ for an omnipotent God is insult when it is asked for proof it is right. You are trying to judge a philosophical discipline by people who are only Earthly leaders, if that much. That would be like judging all voters by the incompetent buffoons in political office. Does it mean the voters are stupid? Perhaps many of them are. Does it mean there is no sound political philosophy? No, there are good ideas, it is just a matter of persuading a majority.
|
|
|
Post by furor teutonicus on Apr 27, 2024 11:22:51 GMT
"In biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process." So yes, abiogenesis absolutely does explain the origin of life from non living matter, that's the whole scope of this theory. And you don't have to reduce it to our planet. Could happen anywhere out there and some of that just happened to bounce into us. Does not mean abiogenesis proves the origin of life. But with what we know today, what happens for example in CERN, where they manage to create matter from nothing (=light radiation), I would say this is far more likely than something more mysterious. Your "process of increasing complexity" is in violation of the known laws of science. No, it is not the "prevailing scientific hypothesis" because actual scientists can remember the laws of science. It is the "prevailing hypothesis" of mentally retarded atheist kids playing with computers on the internet, kids who cannot be expected to understand the laws of science. You are correct that abiogenesis does not "prove" the origin of life. It doesn't even begin to explain it. Notice it got stopped at step 1. I am not seeing the point of admitting it requires a sort of a miracle while denying the existence of a god. If you are going to admit phenomena with miraculous properties what is the point of denying there could be a god? This might be a shock to you, but not everyone believes every report from CERN. It doesn't mean their skepticism is a problem. Mhm - out of arguments - ad hominems. Figures. Always that way when there is a dead end for religious people. Was like this for Morris, Ross and all others who tried to talk their way around the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 27, 2024 11:54:03 GMT
Your "process of increasing complexity" is in violation of the known laws of science. Nope, not at all.
I'd ask you to provide specifics using the precise terminology of science, but we all know you pull this stuff out of your ass and literally don't know a thing about what you are claiming.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 27, 2024 13:01:47 GMT
Your "process of increasing complexity" is in violation of the known laws of science. No, it is not the "prevailing scientific hypothesis" because actual scientists can remember the laws of science. It is the "prevailing hypothesis" of mentally retarded atheist kids playing with computers on the internet, kids who cannot be expected to understand the laws of science. You are correct that abiogenesis does not "prove" the origin of life. It doesn't even begin to explain it. Notice it got stopped at step 1. I am not seeing the point of admitting it requires a sort of a miracle while denying the existence of a god. If you are going to admit phenomena with miraculous properties what is the point of denying there could be a god? This might be a shock to you, but not everyone believes every report from CERN. It doesn't mean their skepticism is a problem. Mhm - out of arguments - ad hominems. Figures. Always that way when there is a dead end for religious people. Was like this for Morris, Ross and all others who tried to talk their way around the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.
You are making an argument I already refuted. I am aware that entropy reversals are possible in an open system. That however does not mean the reversals are adequate to assemble a living thing, as I made clear. Can (1) "construction > 0" when considering a system open to receive energy from another place? Yes, we all understand that. That however is not the end of the story. It is also true that (2) "construction < destruction." That is to say that all the forces of "construction" are also forces of "destruction." Warmth, gentle wave motion, electrostatic discharges, and any force of "construction" you can imagine is at the same time and by the same power a force of destruction (3) "Before life begins smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules." Even atheist kids playing on computers should be able to understand that. As things get built up using whatever energy, the likelihood that the increasing construction will be broken increases. At some point the likelihood of destruction becomes a probability of 1, (4) "P=1," or absolute certainty. That is the reason there is a Second Law of Thermodynamics. Without that truth there would be no Second Law of Thermodynamics. That can be especially difficult to understand for people without a clear understanding of any scientific laws. The link you provided, the "National Center for Science Education," is totally bogus. That it even exists is the problem today, why so many laws are being advocated by people who failed the math, laws that are not based on true science. The NCSE assumption is false that any quantity of heat can guarantee construction. It is not true that if you have enough heat any construction continues. Heat is primarily destructive. That is why we have freezers.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 27, 2024 13:13:03 GMT
Your "process of increasing complexity" is in violation of the known laws of science. Nope, not at all.
I'd ask you to provide specifics using the precise terminology of science, but we all know you pull this stuff out of your ass and literally don't know a thing about what you are claiming.
Are you really that ignorant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Don't you think by now everyone knows you're a troll?
|
|
|
Post by Dividavi on Apr 27, 2024 15:49:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 27, 2024 16:44:26 GMT
Nope, not at all.
I'd ask you to provide specifics using the precise terminology of science, but we all know you pull this stuff out of your ass and literally don't know a thing about what you are claiming.
Are you really that ignorant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Don't you think by now everyone knows you're a troll?
If you understood any of this, you'd know that increasing complexity does not violate the second law.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 27, 2024 17:12:56 GMT
Are you really that ignorant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Don't you think by now everyone knows you're a troll?
If you understood any of this, you'd know that increasing complexity does not violate the second law. Could he be a more obvious troll? ^^^
|
|
|
Post by cinemachinery on Apr 27, 2024 17:22:45 GMT
Are you really that ignorant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Don't you think by now everyone knows you're a troll?
If you understood any of this, you'd know that increasing complexity does not violate the second law. Watching folks debate Arlon is a blast. “The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with that.” “Can you possibly be unaware of the perfundity in abstract fargleblats or Gordon’s hypothesis of hydrostatic conflagellation as it relates to Newton? FOOL!” “…”
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 28, 2024 18:25:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Apr 28, 2024 22:42:34 GMT
Olaf PlunketI found a lecture of Manfred Eigenen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Eigenwhere he describes what happened before the first cell was created. You might skip some of the first minutes, Eigen takes his time until he gets warm. but he shows that this is not the end of the discussion I recommend watching x1.5 with subtitles, some name are butchered as the subtitles don't know for example this guy Ernst Mayr en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayrsee Mayr's contribution to evolution theory there among others mentioned in the lecture are Sidney W. Foxen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox
|
|