- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2010,17:31)
STUQuote My statement about crystals is right. I have grown crystals myself in this way. You have changed from saying that the solution is not random to some fatuous nonsense about the laws being non-random. So what? Hence there is a method to doing so and it is not random at all
Quote No, in that case you would have to conclude that the Big Bang WAS spontaneous, which actually is what it appears to be, and is what Hawking is saying it appears to him to be too. It was not spontaneous it was caused, spontaneous action is self generated action
Quote At least my statement actually followed the rules of grammar and parsed sensibly in English. This sentence is nonsense. What are you on about? Do you know? Laws are indescriminate
Quote Well perhaps you need to change the way you study it then, or perhaps you are right and there are idiots teaching wrong science. It is simply a matter of misunderstanding You have no distant relatives that were shrew like creatures or plants and yes Every living thing has DNA which a PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTIONS. Every kind of animal that was created has only evolved within it's Kind of species
Quote That is the bit you have wrong. If it is a fact that life begets life It is a fact that we result from a long line of human ancestors. If that is actually wrong then there will be very little you can rely on in history at all. We know that we came from shrew-like animals as well as we know there was a desert-dwelling prophet called mohammad; the two would be known to a similar level of confidence. Of course the whole Gabriel talking thing is not established as any kind of fact. Do you know what a ring species is BD? To say it simply the beginning and ending of a species state of reproductivity whereas the beginning or one side cannot interbreed with the other but populations in the middle can.
Other types of species would be the boundary. In otherwords cats and dogs cannot interbreed but all types of dogs can interbreed to a limit and then they cannot even interbreed succesfully.
Horses and donkeys can reproduce a Mule but the then Mule will be sterile. But horses and donkeys are the same KINDS of animals to a degree.
Quote Been through this already with you. Get back to us when you can recall the point I made to you about it last time. Do you remember what I wrote then? You were incorrect, if you were correct you would have recalled your point with glee. In the crux of time both sides of the sexual reprodutive spectrum would have had to be present.
Quote Actually the whole point of specialising as male and female is to increase variation in the population by use of sexual recombination. Genes are shuffled and the new previously untried ways of combining genes add to the variation in the population. Most hermaphroditic animals are not sterile, where did you get that idea? As I have indicated already, if you believe Mo existed then you should believe your very distant ancestors were rodents. The evidence for each is about as strong. Okay, so how would this specialization have started which gender came first and without the other gender how did sex occur?
Quote Evolution is the outcome of 4 billion years of fundamental change in species as they have diverged from a common ancestor. You and I carry multiple lines of evidence of that in every cell in our bodies. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about this fact BD? I’ve always been awed by the fact that I share ancestry with every plant and animal that has DNA (and none don’t!). All things were created out the substances on earth and hence all living things would have the same shared components and yes I am in Awe of That but you do not appreciate the Awesome DNA program itself you somehow have a bizarre notion that DNA is some sort of random spontaneous super computer and the more likely reasonable view to take is that programs have a programmer. Otherwise we would get interesting errors like two people reproducing a chiken because of a glitch in this random computer
Quote I don’t think humans are random spontaneous happenings. We are the products of the very exacting process of natural selection. The evidence of that fact too is written throughout our bodies. You should really stop misusing words or for that matter using words you misunderstand Nature doesn't select anything what you are trying to understand by saying natural selection is “BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY” and I have explained this to you before it's as simple as stating “what lives will breed if it can”
God Bless You!
BD
Quote Hence there is a method to doing so and it is not random at all
The “method” involves ignoring the container. Is that a method? Is doing absolutely nothing the same kind of method your conspiracy of Imaginary Beings has employed in doing non-random things?Quote It was not spontaneous it was caused, spontaneous action is self generated action
You don’t know that the Big Bang had a cause. That is just your religious assertion. Perhaps I would be convinced by you if you could give an mechanism for it that was supported by evidence, but you can’t: all you can do is spout what you reckon off the top of your head.Quote Laws are indescriminate
Laws about murder discriminate different degrees of that crime; traffic laws determine who has the right of way in different situations; taxation laws have arbitrary discriminations to do with ethical questions of wealth distribution. I can’t think of a law that does not contain discrimination as a sign that it was a product of discriminating intelligence.The laws of gravitation and electrostatics give exactly the same result regardless of the circumstances. They have no intelligence behind them which can made any distinctions. What would be the difference between intelligence and the absence of intelligence if it is not this? That is what we would call the difference as humans. Perhaps those who insist on the existence of intelligence are more interested in pushing their god beliefs than they are in really thinking about how shallow the concept is.
Quote It is simply a matter of misunderstanding You have no distant relatives that were shrew like creatures or plants and yes Every living thing has DNA which a PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTIONS. Every kind of animal that was created has only evolved within it's Kind of species
This appears to be your misunderstanding, or perhaps religiously-motivated hatred for the facts of your ancestry. In your language, it has been proven beyond any doubt at all that you had a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago. Is it your religion that insists you believe a lie? What a useless belief system it is that must dupe you with fairy tales. For what purpose do you live in a world of lies?Quote To say it simply the beginning and ending of a species state of reproductivity whereas the beginning or one side cannot interbreed with the other but populations in the middle can. Other types of species would be the boundary. In otherwords cats and dogs cannot interbreed but all types of dogs can interbreed to a limit and then they cannot even interbreed succesfully.
Horses and donkeys can reproduce a Mule but the then Mule will be sterile. But horses and donkeys are the same KINDS of animals to a degree.
This is just mindless biology for simpletons. There is real biology with all the complexity of the degree to which chromosomes match, and the problems of defining the term species in asexually reproducing organisms, then there is the word KIND. It is difficult enough to define the concept of “species” which is NOT a religious fantasy concept.Ring species show us that it is possible, by small steps, to accumulate enough difference to result in related species that cannot mate, and are therefore defined as different species. More importantly, if the distance involved in the geographical spread of that ring were to be enlarged then the degree of difference between the ends would be larger. There is no limit to that concept, and indeed if you stretch the ring across time instead of across space you get huge change over vast lengths of time. Your religious view imposes an artificial limit on the extent of change not because there is such a thing but because it has a mindless myth that it must defend with lies because it has committed itself to a Dark Age mytholological view of the world. That has caused a great deal of damage and misery to humanity, especially now that islam takes itself so literally. What a blight on humanity this kind of religion is. Worse, it is hypocritical in its willingness to benefit from the science of which it approves while lying about other science that has been derived from exactly the same scientific method.
Quote You were incorrect, if you were correct you would have recalled your point with glee. In the crux of time both sides of the sexual reprodutive spectrum would have had to be present.
I do recall my point with glee. The fact that you cannot remember the cause of my glee tells us that you pay no attention to the good points made against your arguments. Nothing new there though, is there. They know that of you in the UK, the US and many places between.Quote Okay, so how would this specialization have started which gender came first and without the other gender how did sex occur?
What gender would you say an hermaphroditic snail is? It reproduces sexually using sperm and egg cells. Why would it be impossible for a change to happen in which an hermaphroditic species diverged into genders? You could even have a long period of time when you had all three of hermaphrodites, males and females able to reproduce. I’m not saying this actually happened, but it is pretty easy to come up with plausible mechanisms that are infinitely more convincing than divine rib surgery as an “explanation”.Quote All things were created out the substances on earth and hence all living things would have the same shared components and yes I am in Awe of That but you do not appreciate the Awesome DNA program itself you somehow have a bizarre notion that DNA is some sort of random spontaneous super computer and the more likely reasonable view to take is that programs have a programmer. Otherwise we would get interesting errors like two people reproducing a chiken because of a glitch in this random computer
No, I do not believe DNA is a random computer program, as I have pointed out to you already. It looks to me like you don’t really understand that which you oppose. Two people will not produce a chicken, but a chicken can be induced to grow teeth, because it has genes for teeth which have been turned off by natural selection: the genes are there but are not expressed. Do you know what kind of teeth those chickens produce? They are the reptilian teeth of their reptilian ancestors. That fact alone disproves creationism.Quote You should really stop misusing words or for that matter using words you misunderstand Nature doesn't select anything what you are trying to understand by saying natural selection is “BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY” and I have explained this to you before it's as simple as stating “what lives will breed if it can”
Exactly. What can live will breed if it can. That which is not suited to living and breeding will not live. If the environment changes then that which is now more suited to the new environment will be more likely to live and reproduce. Wouldn’t you agree that is reasonable?It’s called evolution by natural selection.
Stuart
STU,
It is pointless to go on with arguing with you because you have no interest in hearing anyone but yourself.
Enviroments don't change often enough to back up your assertion and you know it.
Human hermaphrodites are mostly all sterile and if not only one gender of their organs work.
Quote Ring species show us that it is possible, by small steps, to accumulate enough difference to result in related species that cannot mate, and are therefore defined as different species. Exactly but of the same Kind. You are at one point of learning and I am at another point it is possible by taking small steps that you can evolve into the same knowledge that I have
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 23 2010,20:25) STU, It is pointless to go on with arguing with you because you have no interest in hearing anyone but yourself.
Enviroments don't change often enough to back up your assertion and you know it.
Human hermaphrodites are mostly all sterile and if not only one gender of their organs work.
Quote Ring species show us that it is possible, by small steps, to accumulate enough difference to result in related species that cannot mate, and are therefore defined as different species. Exactly but of the same Kind. You are at one point of learning and I am at another point it is possible by taking small steps that you can evolve into the same knowledge that I have
What I know is that you know absolutely nothing about how changing environments have guided the changes in species over the last 4 billion years, you don't know the evidence that you would need to contradict to change my mind. You are miles behind yet proudly display your ignorance.It is not that I don't listen, it is that I have heard your creationist canards before and can disprove them, and in fact I have disproved them but it is you who has already decided he knows it all. I just have a higher threshold for changing my mind, and it is based on what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence. As you have not supplied any evidence and appear not to understand that which you oppose (for example your ignorance about environments and natural selection) I would agree the discussion is a waste of time. Many intelligent people the world over have come to the same conclusion as me regarding your lack of integrity, paraded ignorance and tendency to wander from topic to topic claiming some kind of facuous victory as you go.
Let me tell you that you have won nothing, and that I do not claim to have won anything either because to me winning is when you improve your own understanding of the universe and your own place in it. I have learned nothing new from you, and I stand by what I wrote as that which is reasonable to conclude from the evidence. I don't think you have anything relevant to say about any of this.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 23 2010,21:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 23 2010,20:25) STU, It is pointless to go on with arguing with you because you have no interest in hearing anyone but yourself.
Enviroments don't change often enough to back up your assertion and you know it.
Human hermaphrodites are mostly all sterile and if not only one gender of their organs work.
Quote Ring species show us that it is possible, by small steps, to accumulate enough difference to result in related species that cannot mate, and are therefore defined as different species. Exactly but of the same Kind. You are at one point of learning and I am at another point it is possible by taking small steps that you can evolve into the same knowledge that I have
What I know is that you know absolutely nothing about how changing environments have guided the changes in species over the last 4 billion years, you don't know the evidence that you would need to contradict to change my mind. You are miles behind yet proudly display your ignorance.It is not that I don't listen, it is that I have heard your creationist canards before and can disprove them, and in fact I have disproved them but it is you who has already decided he knows it all. I just have a higher threshold for changing my mind, and it is based on what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence. As you have not supplied any evidence and appear not to understand that which you oppose (for example your ignorance about environments and natural selection) I would agree the discussion is a waste of time. Many intelligent people the world over have come to the same conclusion as me regarding your lack of integrity, paraded ignorance and tendency to wander from topic to topic claiming some kind of facuous victory as you go.
Let me tell you that you have won nothing, and that I do not claim to have won anything either because to me winning is when you improve your own understanding of the universe and your own place in it. I have learned nothing new from you, and I stand by what I wrote as that which is reasonable to conclude from the evidence. I don't think you have anything relevant to say about any of this.
Stuart
STU,how often do you think any particular environment will change? we already know that the world we live in today has had an amazingly steady environment for thousands of years.
from the time we have been recording such data and prior to that we know of a few times in the history of this planet when there have been mass extinction events, but for you to determine any sort of environmental changes that would be severe enough to cause drastic changes in genetics is pure fantasy.
Bilogical Viability would not be based upon constant random mutations and it has not because mutations by nature are generally harmful and not helpful now if originally all Kinds of animals were created and then somewhat evolved over time within their own kind it makes much more sense.
Consider that in 4 billion years with an average of 10,000 years of a steady environment, this would allow for at most 400,000
changes in environment so how many mutations do you think it has taken to get us the life form we have today you said Man's ancestor began 65,000,000 years ago would yield around 6,500 mutations all being Biologically Viable to yield todays man from a shrew like animal is that what you believe?BD
Quote how often do you think any particular environment will change? we already know that the world we live in today has had an amazingly steady environment for thousands of years.
There is a new species of bacterium that has exploited the new environment that humans have created for it by dumping chlorinated hydrocarbons. This food source of poisonous chemicals never existed before but now the bacterium has adapted to eating them. What do you think is actually meant by “environment” to a biologist? Do you think major changes happen in larger animals in the course of “thousands of years”?Quote from the time we have been recording such data and prior to that we know of a few times in the history of this planet when there have been mass extinction events, but for you to determine any sort of environmental changes that would be severe enough to cause drastic changes in genetics is pure fantasy. Quote Bilogical Viability would not be based upon constant random mutations and it has not because mutations by nature are generally harmful and not helpful now if originally all Kinds of animals were created and then somewhat evolved over time within their own kind it makes much more sense.
What the hell is “biological viability”? As for the rest of your post, consider your own use of the word “generally” and then explain the fossil record that backs up the overwhelming number of lines of corroborating evidence that support common descent. Endogenous retroviruses, reptile teeth in chickens, your plantaris muscle (if you have one) and the vagus nerve of the giraffe are just three examples that damningly disprove your assertion.Quote Consider that in 4 billion years with an average of 10,000 years of a steady environment, this would allow for at most 400,000 changes in environment so how many mutations do you think it has taken to get us the life form we have today you said Man's ancestor began 65,000,000 years ago would yield around 6,500 mutations all being Biologically Viable to yield todays man from a shrew like animal is that what you believe?
You are assuming we bed in one mutation then move on to the next one. How many simultaneous changes do you imagine are happening in the 30,000 functional genes in the human gene pool right now? Would it more likely be 1,000 to 10,000 times more genetic change than you are suggesting? It is far more complicated than you suggest, by the constant sexual recombination which produces genetic variation very quickly, and the habit of bacteria to do something similar with their genomes. How much of the “junk DNA” in our genome contains genes that could be turned on again like with the chicken’s teeth, and provide yet more material for natural selection to work on? How much of a change is it really to turn on consistently the genes that give some people a tail, so that all of us could have one? I’ll bet that hidden gene has only been turned off in the past few million years. Your maths is trivial, and wrong.Had you considered learning something about this before posting such ignorant tripe? How about doing some hard work for a change instead of attacking strawman arguments and smearing real science in the process. If you can read, how about you do some reading. Do the work that others have done to come to an understanding of what Darwin ACTUALLY was saying, then criticise that.
Then collect your Nobel Prize which would come to one who had earned it through actually disproving Darwin. No one has managed that in 150 years. Does that not give you cause to stop and think about your posts for even a minute?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 24 2010,10:28) BD Quote how often do you think any particular environment will change? we already know that the world we live in today has had an amazingly steady environment for thousands of years.
There is a new species of bacterium that has exploited the new environment that humans have created for it by dumping chlorinated hydrocarbons. This food source of poisonous chemicals never existed before but now the bacterium has adapted to eating them. What do you think is actually meant by “environment” to a biologist? Do you think major changes happen in larger animals in the course of “thousands of years”?Quote from the time we have been recording such data and prior to that we know of a few times in the history of this planet when there have been mass extinction events, but for you to determine any sort of environmental changes that would be severe enough to cause drastic changes in genetics is pure fantasy. Quote Bilogical Viability would not be based upon constant random mutations and it has not because mutations by nature are generally harmful and not helpful now if originally all Kinds of animals were created and then somewhat evolved over time within their own kind it makes much more sense.
What the hell is “biological viability”? As for the rest of your post, consider your own use of the word “generally” and then explain the fossil record that backs up the overwhelming number of lines of corroborating evidence that support common descent. Endogenous retroviruses, reptile teeth in chickens, your plantaris muscle (if you have one) and the vagus nerve of the giraffe are just three examples that damningly disprove your assertion.Quote Consider that in 4 billion years with an average of 10,000 years of a steady environment, this would allow for at most 400,000 changes in environment so how many mutations do you think it has taken to get us the life form we have today you said Man's ancestor began 65,000,000 years ago would yield around 6,500 mutations all being Biologically Viable to yield todays man from a shrew like animal is that what you believe?
You are assuming we bed in one mutation then move on to the next one. How many simultaneous changes do you imagine are happening in the 30,000 functional genes in the human gene pool right now? Would it more likely be 1,000 to 10,000 times more genetic change than you are suggesting? It is far more complicated than you suggest, by the constant sexual recombination which produces genetic variation very quickly, and the habit of bacteria to do something similar with their genomes. How much of the “junk DNA” in our genome contains genes that could be turned on again like with the chicken’s teeth, and provide yet more material for natural selection to work on? How much of a change is it really to turn on consistently the genes that give some people a tail, so that all of us could have one? I’ll bet that hidden gene has only been turned off in the past few million years. Your maths is trivial, and wrong.Had you considered learning something about this before posting such ignorant tripe? How about doing some hard work for a change instead of attacking strawman arguments and smearing real science in the process. If you can read, how about you do some reading. Do the work that others have done to come to an understanding of what Darwin ACTUALLY was saying, then criticise that.
Then collect your Nobel Prize which would come to one who had earned it through actually disproving Darwin. No one has managed that in 150 years. Does that not give you cause to stop and think about your posts for even a minute?
Stuart
Big error in your thinking as disproving darwin would be as hypothetical as Darwins theory itself. The claims are time based assertions that can never be witnessed and therefore not falsifiable it would be like me saying 10,000,000 years ago the sky was solid and the proof is the fragmented rocks all around how can you prove that theory wrong? There would be no argument at all if the information was OBJECTIVELY valid. All we know really is that there are all types of life forms and some of those life forms have become extinct all life forms have a commonality because they all were derived from the elements of the earth. Now someone decided to earn a bogus livelihood that others have been riding the coat tail of for hundreds of years and these people make a living pretending to connect dots where none exist.You will say things like “Billions of years ago” this or that happened and yet when someone talks about God you say that's impossible or improbable and yet you believe in spontaneous, blind and random cellular architecture developing Conscious beings.
All the while you make sure you never touch the subject of Abiogenesis because you need a biogenic story line for evolution to work, however that first living organism had to come from someplace and if that first living organism came from a non biogenic source there would be no reason that this should not still be occuring today.
Also it makes no entropic sense that smaller things would construct larger things without larger more powerful things first constructing smaller things or forms i.e. Conscious creation is superior to creation rendering consciousness.
BD
Quote Big error in your thinking as disproving darwin would be as hypothetical as Darwins theory itself. The claims are time based assertions that can never be witnessed and therefore not falsifiable it would be like me saying 10,000,000 years ago the sky was solid and the proof is the fragmented rocks all around how can you prove that theory wrong? There would be no argument at all if the information was OBJECTIVELY valid. All we know really is that there are all types of life forms and some of those life forms have become extinct all life forms have a commonality because they all were derived from the elements of the earth. Now someone decided to earn a bogus livelihood that others have been riding the coat tail of for hundreds of years and these people make a living pretending to connect dots where none exist.
If you knew anything about it you would be able to tell me on what basis Darwin’s theory is claimed to be falsifiable, and in some way attack those instead. Actually you are a prime biological ignoramus.Just don’t commit a crime on the basis that you do not believe forensic science is valid.
Quote You will say things like “Billions of years ago” this or that happened and yet when someone talks about God you say that's impossible or improbable and yet you believe in spontaneous, blind and random cellular architecture developing Conscious beings.
No I do not believe that, as I have explained to you at least twice.Quote All the while you make sure you never touch the subject of Abiogenesis because you need a biogenic story line for evolution to work, however that first living organism had to come from someplace and if that first living organism came from a non biogenic source there would be no reason that this should not still be occuring today.
Actually I have explained in detail plausible mechanisms for abiogenesis on this forum in the past. Did you even ask about it before wrongly accusing me of “never touching it”?Can you tell me a plausible mechanism for how your god did it, or are you as much of a hypocrite as you appear to be?
Quote Also it makes no entropic sense that smaller things would construct larger things without larger more powerful things first constructing smaller things or forms i.e. Conscious creation is superior to creation rendering consciousness.
You are a hypocrite. You claim that you can have a large constructor at the beginning, which makes the least “entropic” sense of all.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 24 2010,14:46)
STUQuote If you knew anything about it you would be able to tell me on what basis Darwin’s theory is claimed to be falsifiable, and in some way attack those instead. Actually you are a prime biological ignoramus. Just don’t commit a crime on the basis that you do not believe forensic science is valid.
Of course I believe in forensic science but I also know forensic science can only tell you so much, hence wearing gloves covers finger prints or certain chemicals can completely consume the blood and bone of an individual leaving no forensic evidence to find
Quote Actually I have explained in detail plausible mechanisms for abiogenesis on this forum in the past. Did you even ask about it before wrongly accusing me of “never touching it”? If it was plausible then it should be plausible today and what's more scientist have been purposely trying to cause abiogenesis to occur and still nothing.
Quote Can you tell me a plausible mechanism for how your god did it, or are you as much of a hypocrite as you appear to be? God is living and therefore God can create consciously and animate forms just as we do but on a higher level. The fact is I have more valid reasoning to say that all life came from life than you saying it did not, therefore the starting point of my entire argument is Conscious Life using matter to form terrestrial life it simply makes more sense especially when the end result of terrestrial life is the creaion of Conscious beings that also use matter to create. Does not the end reflect the beginning?
Quote You are a hypocrite. You claim that you can have a large constructor at the beginning, which makes the least “entropic” sense of all. It makes the most sense because entropy is the dispersion of energy meaning the most energy i.e. larger construct proceeds the smaller constructs of energy wave packets. If you take an explosion there will be individual hot debri with its own entropic system which would have all been derived from the most expensive energy. What bomb would be worth its salt if it yielded a tiny dispersion of energy. Even humans are born with a life source that at first pushes the life form all the way to a certain amount of years before the decline in energy becomes the rule the difference in our beliefs are you look at the sperm of the human and I look at the Human as the source of the sperm, the Larger Conscious construct not the chemical soup of life that follows
God Bless You!
BD
Quote Of course I believe in forensic science but I also know forensic science can only tell you so much, hence wearing gloves covers finger prints or certain chemicals can completely consume the blood and bone of an individual leaving no forensic evidence to find
Like what chemicals, for example? Where would you buy them? How would you not be remembered by the person who sold you the chemicals? Just like with forensic science, evolution leaves its evidence in unexpected places. You have failed on every count to give any alternative explanation for any of the evidence for common descent I have suggested to you. Basically I think you are just dishonest. But at least you are in the company of other creationists in nurturing that quality.Quote If it was plausible then it should be plausible today and what's more scientist have been purposely trying to cause abiogenesis to occur and still nothing.
On current evidence it took at least 10s of millions of years for life to appear once the earth was cool enough for water to condense to liquid. How long have we been trying chemical reactions to replicate that process? Not much more than one hundred thousandth of that time. It is not necessarily any faster to know what you are doing when you are just trying possible combinations of substances in possible conditions. The reason we do not see life arising spontaneously today is not necessarily because it isn’t, but whatever relevant organic molecules that may form would likely become lunch for an organism that already exists. That would be particularly true if an entire cell formed spontaneously.Quote God is living and therefore God can create consciously and animate forms just as we do but on a higher level. The fact is I have more valid reasoning to say that all life came from life than you saying it did not, therefore the starting point of my entire argument is Conscious Life using matter to form terrestrial life it simply makes more sense especially when the end result of terrestrial life is the creaion of Conscious beings that also use matter to create. Does not the end reflect the beginning?
OK, so your answer is no I don’t have an explanation. I no longer feel compelled to explain anything to you if all you have is religious platitudes.By the way, if life comes from life, is your Imaginary Friend actually living? Is it cellular, and does it move, respire, show sensitivity to its surroundings, grow, reproduce, excrete waste products and require nutrition? If it blows into dirt to make humans, how is that life from life?
Stu:You are a hypocrite. You claim that you can have a large constructor at the beginning, which makes the least “entropic” sense of all.
Quote It makes the most sense because entropy is the dispersion of energy meaning the most energy i.e. larger construct proceeds the smaller constructs of energy wave packets. If you take an explosion there will be individual hot debri with its own entropic system which would have all been derived from the most expensive energy. What bomb would be worth its salt if it yielded a tiny dispersion of energy. Even humans are born with a life source that at first pushes the life form all the way to a certain amount of years before the decline in energy becomes the rule the difference in our beliefs are you look at the sperm of the human and I look at the Human as the source of the sperm, the Larger Conscious construct not the chemical soup of life that follows
The theory of life force was disproved by Wohler in 1828. Your arguments are 180 years out of date. You are talking about systems that contain mechanisms that disperse a bit of energy as entropy to allow non-spontaneous processes to occur, and yet you are completely dodging the question of how your big dollop of high-quality energy arose in the first place. Just like the “first cause” nonsense, you want to be able to have magic happen consistently with the laws of physics without accepting that your first cause breaks exactly those same laws.Stuart
The theory of life force was disproved by Wohler in 1828
You seem to be confused wohler did not disprove that life came from life he proved that organic matter(Not living matter) could be made or synthesized from inorganic matter please don't confuse the issue others are watching and may not know you are trying to be slick sometimes by the way he synthesized urea and we all know urea is not living.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 25 2010,16:55) The theory of life force was disproved by Wohler in 1828 You seem to be confused wohler did not disprove that life came from life he proved that organic matter(Not living matter) could be made or synthesized from inorganic matter please don't confuse the issue others are watching and may not know you are trying to be slick sometimes by the way he synthesized urea and we all know urea is not living.
Sorry, I appear to have misread your (non-) sentence:
You wrote:Quote Even humans are born with a life source that at first pushes the life form all the way to a certain amount of years before the decline in energy becomes the rule I don't think it makes a great deal of difference though. It might not be the Wohler experiment that you looked up in Wikipedia which you meant, but nevertheless what actually is “life source” if it is not really just another term for “life force”, the concept that was abandoned after Wohler?
In what sense are you using the word energy here?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 25 2010,15:29)
STUQuote Like what chemicals, for example? Where would you buy them? How would you not be remembered by the person who sold you the chemicals? Just like with forensic science, evolution leaves its evidence in unexpected places. You have failed on every count to give any alternative explanation for any of the evidence for common descent I have suggested to you. Basically I think you are just dishonest. But at least you are in the company of other creationists in nurturing that quality. No really there are such chemicals as Hydrofluoric acid
Quote On current evidence it took at least 10s of millions of years for life to appear once the earth was cool enough for water to condense to liquid. How long have we been trying chemical reactions to replicate that process? Not much more than one hundred thousandth of that time. It is not necessarily any faster to know what you are doing when you are just trying possible combinations of substances in possible conditions. The reason we do not see life arising spontaneously today is not necessarily because it isn’t, but whatever relevant organic molecules that may form would likely become lunch for an organism that already exists. That would be particularly true if an entire cell formed spontaneously. That was a long way to say absolutely you have no idea but it was entertaining
Quote OK, so your answer is no I don’t have an explanation. I no longer feel compelled to explain anything to you if all you have is religious platitudes. My answer trumped your answer which was asinine
BD have you noticed that you basically copy the replies I make to you. You almost parrot them but substitute yourself for me.
Perhaps I should be flattered. It isn't a very interesting conversation because you don't know anything and you are failing to answer what I ask you.
Hydrofluoric acid? What is that for? Did you have some glass you wanted to etch. Maybe you could etch some lettering on glass to show the police when they arrive: “Please don't arrest me”. That might work.
I did say that the reason we don't see abiogenesis today is because the molecules would become lunch for bacteria that already are alive and taking in nutrition, apparently unlike your non-biological god that is non-life that begat life. I'm glad you found it entertaining, but are you unable to reply to the point?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,18:33) BD have you noticed that you basically copy the replies I make to you. You almost parrot them but substitute yourself for me. Perhaps I should be flattered. It isn't a very interesting conversation because you don't know anything and you are failing to answer what I ask you.
Hydrofluoric acid? What is that for? Did you have some glass you wanted to etch. Maybe you could etch some lettering on glass to show the police when they arrive: “Please don't arrest me”. That might work.
I did say that the reason we don't see abiogenesis today is because the molecules would become lunch for bacteria that already are alive and taking in nutrition, apparently unlike your non-biological god that is non-life that begat life. I'm glad you found it entertaining, but are you unable to reply to the point?
Stuart
What are you talking about “biology” is the study of life so you are once again being silly we can call it “biotheology” if you want to study the life components of God. Consciousness does not need to be terrestrial nor does communication require a physical source in which it is derived.I wont explain too much about HF for the mere fact children or someone irresponsible may be reading these posts but lets just say don't stick your hand in it.
Your theory about molecules becoming lunch for bacteria would not mean that this molecule menu would be pursued always and everywhere and obviously abiogenesis if it could happen at all would still at some point happen but as far as we know it does not because it cannot.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 27 2010,04:49) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,18:33) BD have you noticed that you basically copy the replies I make to you. You almost parrot them but substitute yourself for me. Perhaps I should be flattered. It isn't a very interesting conversation because you don't know anything and you are failing to answer what I ask you.
Hydrofluoric acid? What is that for? Did you have some glass you wanted to etch. Maybe you could etch some lettering on glass to show the police when they arrive: “Please don't arrest me”. That might work.
I did say that the reason we don't see abiogenesis today is because the molecules would become lunch for bacteria that already are alive and taking in nutrition, apparently unlike your non-biological god that is non-life that begat life. I'm glad you found it entertaining, but are you unable to reply to the point?
Stuart
What are you talking about “biology” is the study of life so you are once again being silly we can call it “biotheology” if you want to study the life components of God. Consciousness does not need to be terrestrial nor does communication require a physical source in which it is derived.I wont explain too much about HF for the mere fact children or someone irresponsible may be reading these posts but lets just say don't stick your hand in it.
Your theory about molecules becoming lunch for bacteria would not mean that this molecule menu would be pursued always and everywhere and obviously abiogenesis if it could happen at all would still at some point happen but as far as we know it does not because it cannot.
So are you claiming your god qualifies as biological life or not?What is “HF”?
It certainly COULD be true that every case of new abiogenesis has been consumed by bacteria, which are ubiquitous. You are very quick to dismiss abiogenesis, when technically all creationists must believe in the creation of life from “non-living chemicals”. After all that is what the Jewish bible implies.
For me the problem is in making this distinction between life and chemistry. Biology is applied chemistry.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 27 2010,17:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 27 2010,04:49) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,18:33) BD have you noticed that you basically copy the replies I make to you. You almost parrot them but substitute yourself for me. Perhaps I should be flattered. It isn't a very interesting conversation because you don't know anything and you are failing to answer what I ask you.
Hydrofluoric acid? What is that for? Did you have some glass you wanted to etch. Maybe you could etch some lettering on glass to show the police when they arrive: “Please don't arrest me”. That might work.
I did say that the reason we don't see abiogenesis today is because the molecules would become lunch for bacteria that already are alive and taking in nutrition, apparently unlike your non-biological god that is non-life that begat life. I'm glad you found it entertaining, but are you unable to reply to the point?
Stuart
What are you talking about “biology” is the study of life so you are once again being silly we can call it “biotheology” if you want to study the life components of God. Consciousness does not need to be terrestrial nor does communication require a physical source in which it is derived.I wont explain too much about HF for the mere fact children or someone irresponsible may be reading these posts but lets just say don't stick your hand in it.
Your theory about molecules becoming lunch for bacteria would not mean that this molecule menu would be pursued always and everywhere and obviously abiogenesis if it could happen at all would still at some point happen but as far as we know it does not because it cannot.
So are you claiming your god qualifies as biological life or not?What is “HF”?
It certainly COULD be true that every case of new abiogenesis has been consumed by bacteria, which are ubiquitous. You are very quick to dismiss abiogenesis, when technically all creationists must believe in the creation of life from “non-living chemicals”. After all that is what the Jewish bible implies.
For me the problem is in making this distinction between life and chemistry. Biology is applied chemistry.
Stuart
Yes God is Biological and yes God took non-living matter and made it biological matter through the injection energetic breath i.e. life forceThe distinction between life and chemistry
Is chemistry are components and life is the result of the proper combination of components
take note that the word Chemistry comes from the word Alchemy
alchemy
mid-14c., from O.Fr. alkemie , from M.L. alkimia , from Arabic al-kimiya , from Gk. khemeioa (found c.300 C.E. in a decree of Diocletian against “the old writings of the Egyptians”), all meaning “alchemy.” Perhaps from an old name for Egypt ( Khemia , lit. “land of black earth,” found in Plutarch), or from Gk. khymatos “that which is poured out,”[/Quote] from khein “to pour,” related to khymos “juice, sap.” The word seems to have elements of both origins.We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
( سورة الحجر , Al-Hijr, Chapter #15, Verse #26)Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
( سورة العلق , Al-Alaq, Chapter #96, Verse #2)Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 28 2010,04:33) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 27 2010,17:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 27 2010,04:49) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,18:33) BD have you noticed that you basically copy the replies I make to you. You almost parrot them but substitute yourself for me. Perhaps I should be flattered. It isn't a very interesting conversation because you don't know anything and you are failing to answer what I ask you.
Hydrofluoric acid? What is that for? Did you have some glass you wanted to etch. Maybe you could etch some lettering on glass to show the police when they arrive: “Please don't arrest me”. That might work.
I did say that the reason we don't see abiogenesis today is because the molecules would become lunch for bacteria that already are alive and taking in nutrition, apparently unlike your non-biological god that is non-life that begat life. I'm glad you found it entertaining, but are you unable to reply to the point?
Stuart
What are you talking about “biology” is the study of life so you are once again being silly we can call it “biotheology” if you want to study the life components of God. Consciousness does not need to be terrestrial nor does communication require a physical source in which it is derived.I wont explain too much about HF for the mere fact children or someone irresponsible may be reading these posts but lets just say don't stick your hand in it.
Your theory about molecules becoming lunch for bacteria would not mean that this molecule menu would be pursued always and everywhere and obviously abiogenesis if it could happen at all would still at some point happen but as far as we know it does not because it cannot.
So are you claiming your god qualifies as biological life or not?What is “HF”?
It certainly COULD be true that every case of new abiogenesis has been consumed by bacteria, which are ubiquitous. You are very quick to dismiss abiogenesis, when technically all creationists must believe in the creation of life from “non-living chemicals”. After all that is what the Jewish bible implies.
For me the problem is in making this distinction between life and chemistry. Biology is applied chemistry.
Stuart
Yes God is Biological and yes God took non-living matter and made it biological matter through the injection energetic breath i.e. life forceThe distinction between life and chemistry
Is chemistry are components and life is the result of the proper combination of components
take note that the word Chemistry comes from the word Alchemy
alchemy
mid-14c., from O.Fr. alkemie , from M.L. alkimia , from Arabic al-kimiya , from Gk. khemeioa (found c.300 C.E. in a decree of Diocletian against “the old writings of the Egyptians”), all meaning “alchemy.” Perhaps from an old name for Egypt ( Khemia , lit. “land of black earth,” found in Plutarch), or from Gk. khymatos “that which is poured out,”[/Quote] from khein “to pour,” related to khymos “juice, sap.” The word seems to have elements of both origins.We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
( سورة الحجر , Al-Hijr, Chapter #15, Verse #26)Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
( سورة العلق , Al-Alaq, Chapter #96, Verse #2)
I agree with your relationship between biology and chemistry.If you god has life in the biological sense then it must be cellular and able to grow, eat and reproduce. Maybe that is why there are many gods.
What does it have for breakfast?
Not sure what your point is regarding alchemy. Chemistry is a distinctly different activity.
If humans are from clots of blood then it asks two new questions: How can people be made from blood? Where did the blood come from?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2010,18:43) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 28 2010,04:33) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 27 2010,17:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 27 2010,04:49) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2010,18:33) BD have you noticed that you basically copy the replies I make to you. You almost parrot them but substitute yourself for me. Perhaps I should be flattered. It isn't a very interesting conversation because you don't know anything and you are failing to answer what I ask you.
Hydrofluoric acid? What is that for? Did you have some glass you wanted to etch. Maybe you could etch some lettering on glass to show the police when they arrive: “Please don't arrest me”. That might work.
I did say that the reason we don't see abiogenesis today is because the molecules would become lunch for bacteria that already are alive and taking in nutrition, apparently unlike your non-biological god that is non-life that begat life. I'm glad you found it entertaining, but are you unable to reply to the point?
Stuart
What are you talking about “biology” is the study of life so you are once again being silly we can call it “biotheology” if you want to study the life components of God. Consciousness does not need to be terrestrial nor does communication require a physical source in which it is derived.I wont explain too much about HF for the mere fact children or someone irresponsible may be reading these posts but lets just say don't stick your hand in it.
Your theory about molecules becoming lunch for bacteria would not mean that this molecule menu would be pursued always and everywhere and obviously abiogenesis if it could happen at all would still at some point happen but as far as we know it does not because it cannot.
So are you claiming your god qualifies as biological life or not?What is “HF”?
It certainly COULD be true that every case of new abiogenesis has been consumed by bacteria, which are ubiquitous. You are very quick to dismiss abiogenesis, when technically all creationists must believe in the creation of life from “non-living chemicals”. After all that is what the Jewish bible implies.
For me the problem is in making this distinction between life and chemistry. Biology is applied chemistry.
Stuart
Yes God is Biological and yes God took non-living matter and made it biological matter through the injection energetic breath i.e. life forceThe distinction between life and chemistry
Is chemistry are components and life is the result of the proper combination of components
take note that the word Chemistry comes from the word Alchemy
alchemy
mid-14c., from O.Fr. alkemie , from M.L. alkimia , from Arabic al-kimiya , from Gk. khemeioa (found c.300 C.E. in a decree of Diocletian against “the old writings of the Egyptians”), all meaning “alchemy.” Perhaps from an old name for Egypt ( Khemia , lit. “land of black earth,” found in Plutarch), or from Gk. khymatos “that which is poured out,”from khein “to pour,” related to khymos “juice, sap.” The word seems to have elements of both origins.
We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
( سورة الحجر , Al-Hijr, Chapter #15, Verse #26)Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
( سورة العلق , Al-Alaq, Chapter #96, Verse #2)[/quote]
I agree with your relationship between biology and chemistry.If you god has life in the biological sense then it must be cellular and able to grow, eat and reproduce. Maybe that is why there are many gods.
What does it have for breakfast?
Not sure what your point is regarding alchemy. Chemistry is a distinctly different activity.
If humans are from clots of blood then it asks two new questions: How can people be made from blood? Where did the blood come from?
Stuart
Quote If humans are from clots of blood then it asks two new questions: How can people be made from blood? Where did the blood come from? Ultimately I would say I do not know. Perhaps blood was the original chemical compound
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
