Creationist Lies 666 apologies
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- Kuz0
ok, discipler, now you are no longer talking about 2nd law of thermodynamics.
remember that. You have given up the argument on the second law of thermodynamics, you are now creating smokescreens about "machines" and "mechanisms"
unimaginably more complex than any machine thought up?? ha, now come on. either you stick to scientific discussion, or you bring in your emotional pseudo-science.
so you want to get into the discussion of the formation of DNA?
- Kuz0
just a sec, i gotta do a half hour or so's work and i'll get back to you.
before i get fired! :)
- mikotondria20
go, Kez.. :)
This rocks..
I did my Geology degree research paper on the chemical soup of the precambrian and the work done by Miller et al when they synthesized complex organic molecules from a model proto-atmosphere of Nitrogen, Methane etc, and applied an electric arc (to simulate lightning)...Given that this can produce very complex chemical species in a very short amount of time and a small reaction vessel, just do that math of trillions of tons of the material over a billion years. From this reaction vessel only 1 self-propogating chemical unit would need to have been created for life to take hold.
Life is a natural process that results from the inherent physical properties of matter. Thats not to say its not magical and wondrous, and you can call it God if it pleases you, but dont try to let that affect your misunderstanding of the science, Disc. :)...
- discipler0
And again, I don't know where you are getting your sources, but the Second Law as it stands STILL maintains that ALL matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subject—without exception are subject to degradation, DESPITE simple patterns of proper, but limited, chanelling of energy on the microbial level. Left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (beating the dead horse, sigh).
This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.
Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law’s demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.
Simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
- bruised_blood0
ppppppppppppppplllllllllllllllll...
- discipler0
Kuz, you can employ all the emotional rhetoric you want... doesn't change the facts.
- JazX0
Isaac Asimov?
- Kuz0
nice one mikontodria, that saves me a GREAT deal.
discipler, what emotional rhetoric did i use? apart from - "I dont give a fuck if it was Darwin himself"
sorry, discipler, you're repeating the same old nonsence that i just discredited. You misunderstand the mathematical concept of thermodynamics. I know i wont change your view on anything, otherwise your whole world will fall apart - but the truth is there for everyone else to see
:)
- discipler0
mikotondria! surely they didn't let you get your degree believing that something actually came out of Miller's experiments! It's widely known amongst scientists that his findings were rendered completely useless. He had the atmosphere completely wrong!
According to origin of life theorists, life somehow spontaneously arose from its basic chemical building blocks. Some scientists and textbooks claim that amino acids, nucleotides, and other “building blocks of life” (pre-biotics) were present on the early earth in a “primordial soup.” However, scientific evidence indicates there was never a “primordial soup.”
The famous "Miller Experiment", performed by Stanley Miller in 1953, did produce amino acids by sparking gasses, but it did not use the gasses that were present in the earth’s atmosphere. When the correct gasses are used, exceedingly little or no amino acids or other building blocks are created. Some proposed that the building blocks came from space, but later studies showed that organic material would be heated and destroyed upon entering the earth’s atmosphere.
There is no natural way to even get the building blocks of life on earth, yet even if they did exist, there is no known natural process for how or why they would then form more complex molecules such as polymers, proteins, RNA, or DNA. The laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics, stack huge odds against the origin of life. Even the “simplest” forms of life would be far too complex to arise by chance, for many complex parts exist in even the “simplest” bacteria.
Miller's experiments are a joke in the scientific community now. It was a controlled experiment shooting electricity into test containers. Even if he had the atmosphere right and even if you try to forget about how controlled the experiment was, do you know how impossible it is to get protiens to form all the components and organize into even a single cell???????
- discipler0
You've discredited nothing, kuz. You have quoted what evolutionists have been trying to say nullifies the 2nd law argument and you, like they, have failed. I've demonstrated this in my replies (though I doubt you read them). You let your emotions get in the way of the facts. :)
- gruntt0
Dear gluton-for-punishment participants,
please take your blood pressure medication and enjoy your time in this thread... ALL OVER AGAIN.
love,
- Kuz0
no but you said my emotional rhetoric - what emotional rhetoric did i use?
i have been making simple statements. where's the rhetoric?
and how do you know about my emotions? awww, come on now, lets not get personal eh? if your arguments are that strong, they'll stand up on their own rightt?
right...?
- discipler0
no one is getting personal. :) Not me, at least. And indeed, the facts prevail. Everything you've pasted, I've answered in my posts. Feel free to re-read.
- JazX0
Dear gluton-for-punishmen t participants,
please take your blood pressure medication and enjoy your time in this thread... ALL OVER AGAIN.
love,
gruntt
(Jun 16 05, 07:00)hahah, I know, I just walked out of this thread for that same reason gruntty
- discipler0
Yes, thank you kuz for the dead horse flogging.
- eficks0
please QBN intervene!
- Kuz0
1. ALL matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subject—without exception are subject to degradation
Are you listening to me? Degradation? The second law of thermodynamics is about the SPREADING OF ENERGY. Not degradation, disorder, "messiness" etc...
2. Left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communic ating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began
Again, you are extrapolating the 2nd law to areas where it has no concern being in. The second law is about THERMO-DYNAMICS. THERMO meaning heat, and energy. Not information. That is wholly a different topic.
3. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule
No. See, this is your error. This "act" as you call it, developed over millions, if not billions of years, in the insane conditions during the formation of earth. It wasn't a "random act" as you try and misinterpret it. It was the pressure put on by the earths environment on increasingly complex molecules.
- Kuz0
discipler you are getting personal. Which is why i repeatedly call you a cunt. You said i'm emotional. Stick to the science or shut the fuck up.
- eficks0
Kuz, i think you were getting personal first.
- mikotondria20
OK, so we've gone backwards and forwards about the 2nd law, which I will surmise as 'The tendency for...'.
And it is just that, a tendency. It doesnt not apply in every circumstance, namely the exception found in living organisms, so lets start from that point and expand from there to the point of view that the creationists take...which would probably go something like:
"Because of the observed deviance from a tendency to entropy, therefore life is a non-natural phenomenon, and therefore MUST have had supra-physical intervention to create it."
Correct ?
So, given this, describe the physical process by which this occurred..
Please do not use the word God or S/HE.
Simply demonstrating that the process is not fully understood at the moment, and that it is therefore not quantifiable will earn no marks, as will reference to passages in the bible, koran or talmut.
Please tell me exactly what your understanding is of the process and I may change my mind. If it makes sense.Go...