Discussion:
The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis
Add Reply
Malcolm McMahon
2017-04-12 15:53:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html

Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.

At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way. Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-12 16:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in the
laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
Exactly. But abiogenesis, itself, is the label given to the
unquestionable _fact_ that at one point in time there was no life, and
subsequently there was.

However it happened.

What upsets the fundamentalists, is that none of the research has
thrown up any need for a magical superbeing to have been involved -
everything is "depressingly" natural.

So it closes more of the gaps where their unevidenced magical
superbeing can hide.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Which would require a time machine.

But nobody insists that it happened the various ways that have been
demonstrated - apart from religious fundamentalists putting words in
other people's mouths that were neither meant nor said.

What it _does_ mean is that we understand the chemistry involved in
the transition from non-life to life - and that it doesn't require an
unevidenced magical superbeing, let alone one from somebody else's
religion.
JTEM
2017-04-21 05:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Exactly. But abiogenesis, itself, is the label given to the
unquestionable _fact_ that at one point in time there was no life, and
subsequently there was.
No it isn't, you fucking idiot.

You're such a mental case that you're ONCE AGAIN
arguing that "abiogenesis" _Is_ creationism.

...and the collective is so fucking stupid it
neither notices nor cares.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159809388668
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 06:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Exactly. But abiogenesis, itself, is the label given to the
unquestionable _fact_ that at one point in time there was no life, and
subsequently there was.
No it isn't, you fucking idiot.
You're such a mental case that you're ONCE AGAIN
arguing that "abiogenesis" _Is_ creationism.
Where did he say that?

You got it backwards. Creation is abiogenesis. Or would be if it happened that way.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-21 12:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:25 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Exactly. But abiogenesis, itself, is the label given to the
unquestionable _fact_ that at one point in time there was no life, and
subsequently there was.
No it isn't, you fucking idiot.
Stop lying, you pathological liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
You're such a mental case that you're ONCE AGAIN
arguing that "abiogenesis" _Is_ creationism.
Stop lying, you pathological liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Where did he say that?
You got it backwards. Creation is abiogenesis. Or would be if it happened that way.
Careful - the moron will equate the two, instead of reading it the way
you mean, ie as it would be an example of it because according to the
bronze age myth only the mentally ill take seriously, it happened
_after_ the Earth was supposed to have been created.

Why does the USA put up with these loonies who have destroyed the
education system for about half the population and are trying to make
everybody else the same kind of pig-ignorant crackpot?
JTEM
2017-04-21 18:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[...]

Hey, shit for brains:

(3 + 7) = (7 + 3)
(9 * 8) = (8 * 9)

You're welcome.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159809388668
JTEM
2017-04-21 18:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
You're such a mental case that you're ONCE AGAIN
arguing that "abiogenesis" _Is_ creationism.
Where did he say that?
In pretty much every thread the topic has come up,
you stupid cunt. The collective has long argued --
and you have long defended -- the notion that creationism
is STILL "abiogenesis."
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Creation is abiogenesis. Or would be if it happened that way.
There. You're actually arguing that nobody said
exactly what you're saying, you're so fucked up.

You're a waste product.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159809388668
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-12 18:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It has zip to do with Darwin.
You don't know that and until you can give an exact universally accepted
definition of life and exactly when it begins....you're wrong. You don't
know when in that ill-defined chemical process, life begins/began and so
too you don't know when evolution began.
Andrew
2017-04-13 09:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:e046bdbb-2321-4dc4-a567-***@googlegroups.com...
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-04-13 14:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
Cite such an experiment.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
We shall see, or more likely we'll die before it happens
Andrew
2017-04-13 20:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin.
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.but
Cite such an experiment.
1. The hypothesis requires that early earth had a reducing atmosphere.
But the facts show that as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust
we find oxidized rock..evidence that the Earth never had a reducing
atmosphere.

2. The "primordial soup" idea is invalidated by the fact that if you had
a *soup of amino acids* it would not produce a single biological
protein..because proteins are formed only in living cells according
to specific instructions from DNA, and within a -mechanism- that
is called "protein synthesis".
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
We shall see,
"Life comes ~only~ from pre-existing life."

That is an established Law of Science.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
or more likely we'll die before it happens
According to the evidence, what happened was -->Creation.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-04-15 11:38:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin.
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.but
Cite such an experiment.
1. The hypothesis requires that early earth had a reducing atmosphere.
But the facts show that as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust
we find oxidized rock..evidence that the Earth never had a reducing
atmosphere.
Which just means that all the oxygen would have been bound up in oxides. We're
talking about _free_ oxygen.
Post by Andrew
2. The "primordial soup" idea is invalidated by the fact that if you had
a *soup of amino acids* it would not produce a single biological
protein..because proteins are formed only in living cells according
to specific instructions from DNA, and within a -mechanism- that
is called "protein synthesis".
That's not a fact, it's an assumption.
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
We shall see,
"Life comes ~only~ from pre-existing life."
That is an established Law of Science.
No, it's an asumption which you believe because it supports creationism.
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
or more likely we'll die before it happens
According to the evidence, what happened was -->Creation.
Andrew
2017-04-15 19:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin.
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.but
Cite such an experiment.
1. The hypothesis requires that early earth had a reducing atmosphere.
But the facts show that as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust
we find oxidized rock..evidence that the Earth never had a reducing
atmosphere.
Which just means that all the oxygen would have been bound up in
oxides. We're talking about _free_ oxygen.
There is no evidence Earth ever had a reducing atmosphere.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
2. The "primordial soup" idea is invalidated by the fact that if you had
a *soup of amino acids* it would not produce a single biological
protein..because proteins are formed only in living cells according
to specific instructions from DNA, and within a -mechanism- that
is called "protein synthesis".
That's not a fact, it's an assumption.
The "primordial soup" idea is indeed a fantasized 'assumption'.

The remainder of the above are biological *facts*.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
We shall see,
"Life comes ~only~ from pre-existing life."
That is an established Law of Science.
No, it's an asumption which you believe because it supports creationism.
Then please cite any documented exception to it.

I agree, it supports Creationism.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
or more likely we'll die before it happens
According to the evidence, what happened was -->Creation.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-16 10:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin.
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.but
Cite such an experiment.
1. The hypothesis requires that early earth had a reducing atmosphere.
But the facts show that as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust
we find oxidized rock..evidence that the Earth never had a reducing
atmosphere.
Which just means that all the oxygen would have been bound up in
oxides. We're talking about _free_ oxygen.
There is no evidence Earth ever had a reducing atmosphere.
How would you know?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-16 17:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:36:52 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin.
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.but
Cite such an experiment.
1. The hypothesis requires that early earth had a reducing atmosphere.
But the facts show that as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust
we find oxidized rock..evidence that the Earth never had a reducing
atmosphere.
An outright lie.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Which just means that all the oxygen would have been bound up in
oxides. We're talking about _free_ oxygen.
There is no evidence Earth ever had a reducing atmosphere.
How would you know?
It was yet another of his deliberate, stupidly transparent lies - he's
had it explained many times that oxygen is so reactive that there
would be no free, athmospheric or dissolved oxygen until there was
nothing left to react with.

But instead of either acknowledging this or coming up with a coherent
and convincing rebuttal, he just sez "it ain't so".

It is impossible to break through these loonies' barriers to
communication when they refuse to admit facts, make up their own
amounting to lies, block out anything they don't even try to
understand and use their own dumbed-down vocabulary and logic.

Even when they bring up their nonsense in the first place,
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-13 23:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
WAY.
aaa
2017-04-14 04:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
WAY.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-16 10:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-16 17:45:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:37:31 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution.
Project much deliberate personal liar?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design.
The proven serial liar knows that we understand precisely how it
happens, and it is perfectly natural.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible.
Another deliberate lie, because he knows perfectly well the 2LOT only
applies to closed systems.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
They are evidence for God's creation.
WHAT FUCKING GOD?

The question-begging moron knows perfectly well that it is merely his
religious presumption and that nothing leads to it as a conclusion.

He is so stupid he doesn't understand that only members of his own
religion take it seriously.

For everybody else, it is no different from Odin, Zeus, Osiris,
Krishna, Mithras and all the hundreds of others,

All of which has been explained, over and over again.

And he is so dishonest that he imagines deliberate lies are somehow
evidence for it.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
How are they that?
Religion makes people stupid.
aaa
2017-04-18 03:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.

In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.

Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.

The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.

Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
John Ritson
2017-04-18 09:42:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system is
pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate, making it
possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar system to reduce
entropy and create order.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
aaa
2017-04-18 20:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system is
pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate, making it
possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar system to reduce
entropy and create order.
What are you talking about? That's completely wrong. The entropy of the
sun is actually reducing because it's exporting entropy by radiating
heat into the space. The energy coming from the sun does not reduce
entropy. It's heating up the rest of the universe to increase entropy.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
John Ritson
2017-04-18 22:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system is
pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate, making it
possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar system to reduce
entropy and create order.
What are you talking about? That's completely wrong. The entropy of the
sun is actually reducing because it's exporting entropy by radiating
heat into the space. The energy coming from the sun does not reduce
entropy. It's heating up the rest of the universe to increase entropy.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
John Ritson
aaa
2017-04-19 18:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for
unknown reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system is
pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate, making it
possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar system to reduce
entropy and create order.
What are you talking about? That's completely wrong. The entropy of the
sun is actually reducing because it's exporting entropy by radiating
heat into the space. The energy coming from the sun does not reduce
entropy. It's heating up the rest of the universe to increase entropy.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Ritson
2017-04-19 19:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you
get
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for
unknown reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
But every human being's DNA is different. Does this imaginary God
character intervene every time a human egg is fertilised?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system is
pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate, making it
possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar system to reduce
entropy and create order.
What are you talking about? That's completely wrong. The entropy of the
sun is actually reducing because it's exporting entropy by radiating
heat into the space. The energy coming from the sun does not reduce
entropy. It's heating up the rest of the universe to increase entropy.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.
Nonsense. Does your imaginary God character have to shape every complex
snowflake?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
John Ritson
%
2017-04-19 19:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community
leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s.
And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any.
Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit
sometimes from certifiable crazies like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not
suffice to prove it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and
intellectually
deceived by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the
evidence
of intelligent design. The second law of thermodynamics
guarantees that abiogenesis is not possible. They are
evidence
for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly
created DNA code designed to combat a specific life threatening
problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a
specific computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly
changing or modifying the existing antivirus program. There has
to be intelligence involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T)
in the codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon
(GAG) to a valine codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia,
which makes the red blood cells resistant to the malarial
parasite - a beneficial DNA change in malarial zones. No
intelligence required. Changing the letter back is beneficial in
non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for
unknown reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
But every human being's DNA is different. Does this imaginary God
character intervene every time a human egg is fertilised?
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced
entropy. Stars and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to
the space through radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces
the entropy of the sun which will ultimately make the sun into
a
dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease
must
be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of
order in the natural environment can only be accomplished by
losing energy to increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not
reduce its own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By
receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only
increase
just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis
can not happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar
system
is pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate,
making it possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar
system to reduce entropy and create order.
What are you talking about? That's completely wrong. The entropy
of the sun is actually reducing because it's exporting entropy by
radiating heat into the space. The energy coming from the sun
does
not reduce entropy. It's heating up the rest of the universe to
increase entropy.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing
energy demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and
preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to
create
sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just
like
a human machine that makes raw material into manufactured
goods.
It has to be designed, and it has to be run and operated by
intelligence.
Nonsense. Does your imaginary God character have to shape every
complex snowflake?
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not
exist
without God.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
you have ads in your posts
aaa
2017-04-21 04:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you
get
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for
unknown reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
But every human being's DNA is different. Does this imaginary God
character intervene every time a human egg is fertilised?
Of course. God is always involved in everything about life.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In nature, the creation of order is the result of reduced entropy. Stars
and galaxies are formed by exporting entropy to the space through
radiation. The radiation of the sun reduces the entropy of the sun which
will ultimately make the sun into a dense neutron star when the sun
dies. The second law says that total entropy reduce for a given process
is not possible in the universe. The local entropy decrease must be at
the cost of total entropy increase. Therefore, the creation of order in
the natural environment can only be accomplished by losing energy to
increase the total entropy of the system.
Since life does not have its own energy source, life can not reduce its
own entropy by losing energy like the sun does. By receiving the
radiation from the sun, the entropy of life should only increase just
like everything else in the environment. Therefore, abiogenesis can not
happen in nature all by itself.
The sun, which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system is
pumping out energy, and gaining entropy, at a massive rate, making it
possible for things in the other 0.2% of the solar system to reduce
entropy and create order.
What are you talking about? That's completely wrong. The entropy of the
sun is actually reducing because it's exporting entropy by radiating
heat into the space. The energy coming from the sun does not reduce
entropy. It's heating up the rest of the universe to increase entropy.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The fact that photosynthesis does reduce entropy without losing energy
demonstrates that life has the ability to convert and preserve the
energy from the sun to circumvent the second law. Such ability is based
on an ingenious strategy that preserves energy locally to create sugar
by exporting entropy through water vapors. It's a complicated process
that can only happen in a controlled environment. It's just like a human
machine that makes raw material into manufactured goods. It has to be
designed, and it has to be run and operated by intelligence.
Nonsense.
Why nonsense?

Does your imaginary God character have to shape every complex
Post by John Ritson
snowflake?
Irrelevant. Snowflake is only natural entropy fluctuation that doesn't
defy the second law. Life defies the second law just like modern
airplane defies gravity. It has to be designed just like airplane is
designed.
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Therefore, life is not only a design but also a design run and operated
by the designer. It's evidence of God and why life can not exist without
God.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Gronk
2017-04-24 05:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that
abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for unknown
reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
Prove it.

https://spaceradiation.jsc.nasa.gov/about/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
aaa
2017-04-24 09:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:11:24 AM UTC-7,
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Gronk
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific
community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane
hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's
plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane
hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no
idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any.
Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit
sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory
would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove
Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at
creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and
intellectually deceived by evolution. A beneficial DNA
change is the evidence of intelligent design. The
second law of thermodynamics guarantees that
abiogenesis is not possible. They are evidence for
God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a
newly created DNA code designed to combat a specific life
threatening problem. It's exactly the same as a new
computer program designed to combat a specific computer
virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be
intelligence involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to
T) in the codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid
codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell
anaemia, which makes the red blood cells resistant to the
malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in malarial
zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it
still requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly
by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for
unknown reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
Prove it.
A beneficial DNA change is an orderly construction of reduced entropy.
It's the result of preserving energy to create order. In the human
world, preserving energy is only accomplished by designing a process to
covert naturally available energy into electricity. It's based on the
intelligent design. In the lifeless physical world, there is no such
process possible according to the second law. The available energy of
the universe is constantly being lost. Life is the only entity that is
capable to preserve energy. Therefore, the beneficial DNA change that
has enabled life to survive can only be the result of intelligence.
Since God is the source of all intelligence, the beneficial DNA change
can not happen without God.
Post by Gronk
https://spaceradiation.jsc.nasa.gov/about/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
John Ritson
2017-04-24 14:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Gronk
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:11:24 AM UTC-7,
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Gronk
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific
community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane
hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's
plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane
hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no
idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any.
Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit
sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory
would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Andrew
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove
Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at
creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and
intellectually deceived by evolution. A beneficial DNA
change is the evidence of intelligent design. The
second law of thermodynamics guarantees that
abiogenesis is not possible. They are evidence for
God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a
newly created DNA code designed to combat a specific life
threatening problem. It's exactly the same as a new
computer program designed to combat a specific computer
virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be
intelligence involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to
T) in the codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid
codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell
anaemia, which makes the red blood cells resistant to the
malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in malarial
zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it
still requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly
by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for
unknown reasons.
'Unknown reasons'- so the imaginary deity is not needed to change DNA.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
There can be no beneficial DNA change without
Post by Gronk
Post by aaa
God.
A change can be beneficial or non-beneficial depending on the
environment, such as the one-letter change in the genetic code that
causes sickle-cell anaemia, beneficial in malarial areas, non-beneficial
in non-malarial areas.
So the 'unknown reasons' can cause a beneficial change in some
environments.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Gronk
Prove it.
A beneficial DNA change is an orderly construction of reduced entropy.
It's the result of preserving energy to create order. In the human
world, preserving energy is only accomplished by designing a process to
covert naturally available energy into electricity.
Only electricity? Raving nonsense. Chemical energy can be converted into
gravitational potential energy, or kinetic energy. No electricity
involved.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's based on the
intelligent design. In the lifeless physical world, there is no such
process possible according to the second law. The available energy of
the universe is constantly being lost.
But in a particular location, like the Earth, energy can be replenished
by the sun.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Life is the only entity that is
capable to preserve energy. Therefore, the beneficial DNA change that
has enabled life to survive can only be the result of intelligence.
But you don't know if a DNA change is beneficial or not until you know
what the environment is.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Since God is the source of all intelligence, the beneficial DNA change
can not happen without God.
But you don't know if a DNA change is beneficial or not until you know
what the environment is.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-24 14:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by John Ritson
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans
is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains
Post by John Ritson
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is
which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get
outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies
like
nephilimfree.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code designed to combat a specific life threatening problem. It's
exactly the same as a new computer program designed to combat a specific
computer virus. It can not be accomplished by randomly changing or
modifying the existing antivirus program. There has to be intelligence
involved.
Nonsense. A one-letter change in the human genetic code (A to T) in the
codon for amino acid 6 converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG). This causes sickle-cell anaemia, which makes the red blood
cells resistant to the malarial parasite - a beneficial DNA change in
malarial zones. No intelligence required. Changing the letter back is
beneficial in non-malarial zones. No intelligence required.
For the change to happen at that specific DNA location, it still
requires intelligence involved. It can't happen randomly by pure chance.
So no DNA change is possible without intelligent intervention?
No. DNA change is an intelligent work that can always go wrong for unknown
reasons. There can be no beneficial DNA change without God.
The deliberate liar can't stop lying - he has had the mechanisms
explained many times.
Post by Gronk
Prove it.
He can't - which is why he should shut the fuck up about it.

But these in-your-face morons imagine their deluded religious
fantasies are exempt from that, even though they spew complete and
utter nonsense here it is simply irrelevant.
Post by Gronk
https://spaceradiation.jsc.nasa.gov/about/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528781/cosmic-rays-neutrons-and-the-mutation-rate-in-evolution/
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-20 12:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code \
No, it's not.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
aaa
2017-04-21 04:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code \
No, it's not.
That's blind denial.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 10:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
How are they that?
A beneficial DNA change is a creation of order. It's a newly created DNA
code \
No, it's not.
That's blind denial.
Of course it isn't.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-16 19:27:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution.
Like nearly every scientist in the world. You claiming it is not real is just plain bullshit. Evolution is biology and it is science and it is a fact.


A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
Post by aaa
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
We have already established that you have no idea what the second law of thermodynamics is.
http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo2.html

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae280.cfm

http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

https://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/creationism-laws-thermodynamics

https://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/creationism-laws-thermodynamics
A perfectly adequate response to such nonsense is to point out that the earth is not an isolated system, and therefore the condition required by the Second Law is not met. We can surely say more than just this, however. After all, entropy is not merely some nebulous concept of disorder, but an exactly defined quantity in physics. For example, 18 grams of water at 25° C has an entropy of 70.0 Joules per Kelvin (Lide 2004-5: 5-18; 6-4). Since entropy can be calculated precisely, it is possible to determine what restrictions the laws of thermodynamics really place on evolution. To do this, we should first look at how entropy is defined mathematically.

THE CALCULATION OF ENTROPY


The change in the entropy of a system as it goes from an initial state to a final state is

ΔS = ∫ dQ
T


which simplifies to

ΔS = Q
T
if the temperature is constant throughout the process. In this equation:

S is the entropy in units of Joules per Kelvin (or J/K),

ΔS is the change in the entropy during the process,

Q is the flow of heat in units of Joules (or J) (Q is positive if heat flows into the object, and negative if heat flows out of the object), and

T is the temperature in units of Kelvin (or K).


For example, suppose that two cubes of matter at temperatures of 11 K and 9 K are brought together, 99 Joules of heat spontaneously flow from the hotter to the colder cube (as shown), and the cubes are separated. If the heat capacities of the cubes are so large that their temperatures remain essentially constant, the change in entropy of the entire system is

ΔS = Qcolder + Qhotter = 99 + -99 = 11 - 9 = +2 J/K.
Tcolder Thotter 9 11


Notice that this change of entropy is a positive quantity. The entropy of any system tends to increase, as energy flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions.

THE ENTROPY OF SUNLIGHT


To examine the change of entropy necessary to generate life on earth, begin with a square, one meter long on each side, at the same distance from the sun as the earth (93 million miles) and oriented so that one side fully faces the solar disk. The amount of radiant power that passes through this area is called the solar constant, and is equal to 1373 Joules/second (Lide 2004-5: 14-2). In the absence of the earth's atmosphere, the entropy of this sunlight would equal this energy divided by the temperature of the sun's surface, known from spectroscopy to equal 5780 K. The result would give the entropy of this amount of sunlight as 0.238 J/K every second.

A more sophisticated analysis of the energy and entropy that reaches the surface of the earth is given by Kabelac and Drake (1992: 245). Due to absorption and scattering by the atmosphere, only 897.6 J of energy reaches one square meter of the earth's surface through a clear sky every second (731.4 J directly from the solar disk, and 166.2 J diffused through the rest of the sky). For an overcast sky, all the energy is from diffuse radiation, equal to 286.7 J, according to Kabelac and Drake's model. The entropy that reaches this square meter through a clear sky every second is 0.305 J/K (0.182 J/K directly from the solar disk, and 0.123 J/K diffused through the rest of the sky). For an overcast sky, all the entropy is from diffuse radiation, equal to 0.218 J/K (see figure, p 32).

So, for one square meter on the earth's surface facing the sun, the energy received every second from a clear sky is 897.6 J, and the entropy received is 0.305 J/K. If we are to apply these numbers to a study of life on earth, we must spread these quantities over the entire earth's surface (of area 4πr2) rather than the cross-section of the earth (of area πr2) that receives the rays perpendicular to the surface. Therefore, these numbers must be reduced by a factor of 4 to represent the energy and entropy that an average square meter of the earth receives every second, as 224.4 J and 0.076 J/K, respectively.

THE ENTROPY BUDGET OF ONE SQUARE METER OF LAND


The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 K (= 15° C = 59° F) according to Lide (2004-5: 14-3). To maintain this temperature, that one square meter must radiate 224.4 J of energy back into the atmosphere (and ultimately into outer space) every second. The entropy of this radiation is

ΔS = Q = 224.4 = 0.779 J/K.
T 228


Assuming sunny skies, this one square meter of ground gains 0.076 J/K of entropy every second from sunlight, and produces 0.779 J/K every second by radiating energy back into the sky for a net entropy creation rate of 0.703 J/K every second. In effect, the earth is an entropy factory for the universe, taking individual high-energy (visible) photons and converting each of them into many low-energy (infrared) photons, increasing the disorder of the universe. As long as life on earth decreases its entropy at a rate of 0.703 J/K or less per square meter every second, the entropy of the universe will not decrease over time due to this one square meter of earth, and the Second Law will be obeyed.

How much energy and entropy are contained in life on the earth's land surface, compared to a lifeless earth? The average biomass occupying one square meter of land is between 10 and 12 kg, mostly as plant material (Bortman and others 2003: 145). Taking 11 kg as an average,we can calculate how much energy it would take to create this biomass from simple inorganic chemicals. This can be done by reversing the process, and asking how much energy is released when combustion reduces plant life to ashes. The answer is the heat of combustion, which for wood (which we may take as representative of plant life) is 1.88 x 107 J/kg (Beiser 1991: 431). Multiplying these two numbers together, the energy required to generate the amount of life currently found on an average square meter of land is 2.07 x 108 J.

If this life is generated at the earth's average temperature of 288 K, its entropy decrease will be

ΔS = Q = 2.07 x 108 = 7.18 x 105 J/K.
T 228


The earth's bodies of water are relatively sterile, and can be ignored; if life on land can be generated, the sparse amount of life in water can certainly be generated as well.

WHAT THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS TELL US


We are now able to determine what restrictions the laws of thermodynamics place upon the evolution of life on earth. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, heat is a flow of energy and must obey the Law of Conservation of Energy. The average square meter of land surface on earth receives 224.4 J of energy from the sun every second, and contains

2.07 x 108 J of energy stored in living tissue. The ratio of these two values is

2.07 x 108 = 9.22 x 105 seconds = 10.7 days.
224.4


If all the solar energy received by this square meter is used to create organic matter, a minimum of 10.7 days is required to avoid violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, the entropy tends to increase. The average square meter of land may balance the entropy increase due to radiation by generating a maximum entropy decrease of 0.703 J/K every second through the growth of life without violating this law. The difference in entropy between this square meter with life and the same square meter in the absence of life is 7.18 x 105 J/K. The ratio of these two values is

7.18 x 108 = 1.02 x 106 seconds = 11.8 days.
0.703


A minimum of 11.8 days is required to avoid violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Third (and final) Law of Thermodynamics, which states that S = 0 J/K for a pure perfect crystal at 0 K, has no application to creationism.

CONCLUSION


Shades of a Creation Week! As long as the evolution of life on earth took longer than 10.7 or 11.8 days, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are not violated, respectively. Even for an overcast sky, these numbers increase to merely 33 and 43 days respectively. As evolution has obviously taken far longer than this, the creationists are wrong to invoke entropy and the laws of thermodynamics to defend their beliefs.

Of course, solar energy is not going to be converted into the chemical energy of organic compounds with 100% efficiency. It takes a growing season of several months to reestablish the grasses of the prairie, and forests can take centuries to regrow. What this study has shown is that the time constraints for these two laws are very similar. Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case, either.
References
Beiser A. 1991. Physics. 5th ed. New York:Addison-Wesley.

Bortman M, Brimblecombe P, Cunningham MA, Cunningham WP, Freedman B, eds. 2003. Environmental Encyclopedia. 3rd ed. New York: Gale Group.

Kabelac S, Drake FD. 1992. The entropy of terrestrial solar radiation. Journal of Solar Energy Science and Engineering 48 (4): 239¨C48.

Lide DR, ed. 2004¨C2005. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 85th ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.

Morris HM. 1989. The Long War Against God. Grand Rapids (MI): Baker Book House.

Ross H.2004. A Matter of Days. Colorado Springs (CO):NavPress.

About the Author(s):
Physics Department
Los Angeles Harbor College
1111 Figueroa Place
Wilmington CA 90744
***@lahc.edu

Steven L Morris received his BSc in astronomy from the University of Toronto and his PhD in physics from the University of Calgary. After two years as a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA (which included a one-year winter-over at the South Pole, Antarctica!), he spent two years as a physics professor at the University of Puerto Rico before returning to Los Angeles. He currently teaches physics and physical science at Los Angeles Harbor College.
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
WAY.
Gronk
2017-04-19 03:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived by
evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent design.
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is not
possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
The 2nd says no such thing.

Do you know what a closed system is?
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-19 08:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived by
evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent design.
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is not
possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
The 2nd says no such thing.
Do you know what a closed system is?
The raving loonie doesn't know anything.
aaa
2017-04-23 09:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived by
evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent design.
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is not
possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
The 2nd says no such thing.
Yes, it does. The second law guarantees that energy preservation is not
possible to happen automatically in nature. Life is based on the ability
of energy preservation. It's not a naturally occurring event. The
lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with such
energy preserving ability. Abiogenesis is pure imagination.
Post by Gronk
Do you know what a closed system is?
My understanding of the second law has nothing to do with human
definition of open or closed system. The second law applies to all systems.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-24 09:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Gronk
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived by
evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent design.
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is not
possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
The 2nd says no such thing.
Yes, it does. The second law guarantees
The rest of the gibberish deleted.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-24 15:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:57:45 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Gronk
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived by
evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent design.
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is not
possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
The 2nd says no such thing.
Yes, it does. The second law guarantees
The rest of the gibberish deleted.
He has no idea what the 2LOT says, and simply repeats lies he got from
a dishonest creationist "minister".

You don't even need to know the individual laws of thermodynamics
because they follow from how usable heat and energy are used up as
they are transferred from regions with more energy to less - in terms
of heat, heating up the cooler and cooling the hotter until
equilibrium is reached.

But on Earth, this equilibrium won't happen for billions of years
until the sun no longer supplies fusion energy (by which time the
Earth will have gone anyway as the sun becomes a red giant).

However much you try to explain it, even grossly simplified, to this
and other creationist morons, it is too hard for them to understand,
even though it's hardly rocket science.

They're too stupid to understand what the rest of us knew from high
school physics.
aaa
2017-04-24 20:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:57:45 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Gronk
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived by
evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent design.
The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is not
possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
The 2nd says no such thing.
Yes, it does. The second law guarantees
The rest of the gibberish deleted.
He has no idea what the 2LOT says, and simply repeats lies he got from
a dishonest creationist "minister".
You don't even need to know the individual laws of thermodynamics
because they follow from how usable heat and energy are used up as
they are transferred from regions with more energy to less - in terms
of heat, heating up the cooler and cooling the hotter until
equilibrium is reached.
Here is what you misunderstand the law. "Heating up the cooler and
cooling the hotter" is the first law. The second law is about the usable
energy being lost in this equilibrium process. Life has the ability to
keep the usable energy from being lost by preserving it into sugar. Life
is keeping the equilibrium from happening. It's an unique ability that
does not exist in the lifeless physical world.

When you compare this ability of life with the energy preserving process
in the human world, you will realize that such process is the result of
intelligent design. It's evidence of intelligence to enable life in this
physical world.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But on Earth, this equilibrium won't happen for billions of years
until the sun no longer supplies fusion energy (by which time the
Earth will have gone anyway as the sun becomes a red giant).
However much you try to explain it, even grossly simplified, to this
and other creationist morons, it is too hard for them to understand,
even though it's hardly rocket science.
They're too stupid to understand what the rest of us knew from high
school physics.
ernobe
2017-04-26 00:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is what you misunderstand the law. "Heating up the cooler and cooling the
hotter" is the first law. The second law is about the usable energy being lost
in this equilibrium process. Life has the ability to keep the usable energy from
being lost by preserving it into sugar. Life is keeping the equilibrium from
happening. It's an unique ability that does not exist in the lifeless physical
world.
When you compare this ability of life with the energy preserving process in the
human world, you will realize that such process is the result of intelligent
design. It's evidence of intelligence to enable life in this physical world.
Thanks for clarifying. Does this explain where the so-called missing energy of the
universe, which modern physicists call dark matter, is going?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But on Earth, this equilibrium won't happen for billions of years
until the sun no longer supplies fusion energy (by which time the
Earth will have gone anyway as the sun becomes a red giant).
Christopher in his response appears to ignore that current scientists
can't account for the missing energy; hence the equilibrium he is
talking about, as with most other things, exists only in his own mind.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
2017-04-13 17:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis
Is this the chemical you Americans think Bashar of Syria used to gas his own people? :-)
aaa
2017-04-13 18:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that
way. Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be
possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
Smiler
2017-04-13 20:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.

If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Andrew
2017-04-13 20:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.

All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing. Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
raven1
2017-04-13 22:02:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-13 22:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:02:27 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
The deliberate liar knows that, because it's been explained over and
over again, only for him to ignore it.. So it is at best, highly
contentious - which is why he does it.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
Nobody ever said it did, apart from dishonest creationists putting
words in other people's mouthe that he wknows were neither said nor
meant,

They're shameless liars. Any normal person would be embarrased if they
resorted to such stupidly transparent lies.
Post by raven1
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
The problem is that he pretends abiogenesis never happened, and that
the biochemists researchiung it lied about their results.

He's been given Sidney Fox's research over and over again, but the
closest he came to addressing it was a cut'n'pastefrom a creationist
site whose author never bothered to read it for comprehension, either,

It was headed"Scientist refute Sidney Fox" or something similar, and
included quot6e mining from Fox's own presentation to make it look as
if none of the cases worked, because one of them didn't.
aaa
2017-04-14 03:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Yet, you are sure that no such knowledge is necessary.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
It's a greater digital code. It's a quaternary code that is more
efficient and more powerful than binary code. A binary code is only a
two dimensional system. A quaternary code is a three dimensional system.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
The modification is a creative process. It's part of creation.
Andrew
2017-04-15 13:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not
produce life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
raven1
2017-04-15 16:16:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:51:07 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for evidence.
List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for life to arise
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out of
those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not
produce life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
raven1
2017-04-18 23:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:16:50 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:51:07 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for evidence.
List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for life to arise
<crickets>
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out of
those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Oh dear, no response? What a surprise. But alas, it will surprise no
one when you resurface, repeating the same tired claim, because you
refuse to learn anything, ever.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not
produce life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
<crickets>
Don Martin
2017-04-19 22:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:00:01 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:16:50 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:51:07 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for evidence.
List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for life to arise
<crickets>
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out of
those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Oh dear, no response? What a surprise. But alas, it will surprise no
one when you resurface, repeating the same tired claim, because you
refuse to learn anything, ever.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not
produce life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
<crickets>
Crickets AGAIN! But we had crickets last night from him. And the
night before, u.s.w.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-04-20 02:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for evidence.
List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for life to arise
<crickets>
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form of
a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could be no
living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out of
those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Oh dear, no response? What a surprise. But alas, it will surprise no one
when you resurface, repeating the same tired claim, because you refuse
to learn anything, ever.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
<crickets>
Crickets AGAIN! But we had crickets last night from him. And the night
before, u.s.w.
Tumbleweed next.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Don Martin
2017-04-20 22:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for evidence.
List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for life to arise
<crickets>
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form of
a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could be no
living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out of
those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Oh dear, no response? What a surprise. But alas, it will surprise no one
when you resurface, repeating the same tired claim, because you refuse
to learn anything, ever.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
<crickets>
Crickets AGAIN! But we had crickets last night from him. And the night
before, u.s.w.
Tumbleweed next.
And the lonely wind howled across the plains.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-04-21 02:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:00:01 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:16:50 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:51:07 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given
enough time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for
evidence. List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for
<crickets>
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could be
no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out
of those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Oh dear, no response? What a surprise. But alas, it will surprise no
one when you resurface, repeating the same tired claim, because you
refuse to learn anything, ever.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
<crickets>
Crickets AGAIN! But we had crickets last night from him. And the
night before, u.s.w.
Tumbleweed next.
And the lonely wind howled across the plains.
The lonely wind howled across the empty plains of his mind.
In one ear and out the other.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Don Martin
2017-04-21 22:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:00:01 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:16:50 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:51:07 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given
enough time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
"Common sense" is useless in science. That's why we look for
evidence. List your "solid evidence" that one of the condtions for
<crickets>
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could be
no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
"The language of DNA is digital." https://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
ROTFLMFO! The second sentence on the page knocks the wind right out
of those sails, silly: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a
nail". No, the language of DNA is not digital. It is chemical. Your
coder who wrote the page is attempting a *very* strained metaphor at
best.
Oh dear, no response? What a surprise. But alas, it will surprise no
one when you resurface, repeating the same tired claim, because you
refuse to learn anything, ever.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
Exactly!
Since no one claims otherwise, what's your point?
<crickets>
Crickets AGAIN! But we had crickets last night from him. And the
night before, u.s.w.
Tumbleweed next.
And the lonely wind howled across the plains.
The lonely wind howled across the empty plains of his mind.
In one ear and out the other.
'Tis hard to evade the draft when it is personal.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-16 10:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Just common sense based on solid evidence.
What "solid evidence" would that be?

And, no, your credulity is not evidence.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Smiler
2017-04-13 23:51:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
No god necessary.
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence*
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by Andrew
in the form of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there
could be no living thing.
When did you check everywhere in the universe that there are no living
things without DNA?
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes.
Neither does your supposed god character.
Post by Andrew
It will modify them -only- after they have been formed.
CIFY.
Post by Andrew
Got it?
That you're a moron, yes.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-16 10:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
Your evidence for this statement is what, exactly?

And, no, your credulity is not evidence.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-13 21:15:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The loonie has been given this on several occasions but ignored it
every time...

The link is to an easy to follow presentation by the late Sidney Fox
on the formation of proto-cells in the lab using simple, natural
processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

The following is an abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team
concerning their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

[me: Note how few of the team doing this ground-breaking work were
American. Most of them were from overseas, doing post graduate and
post-doctoral work in the US. This has been the state of US science
for a long time]

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM [my emphasis].

Note. Sidney Fox's work was in the 1950s. Alfonso Herrera's was in the
late 1930s. Both Aleksandr Oparin and J.B.S.Haldane had laid down the
theoretical groundwork in the 1920s.

So none of this is particularly new.
aaa
2017-04-14 04:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions in
nature only result in an increase of entropy. Biochemical reaction in
life results in a decrease of entropy by increasing the entropy of the
natural environment instead. Such process does not exist and can not
happen in a lifeless natural environment. It can only happen in life.
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Smiler
2017-04-15 01:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that
such condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It
is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions in
nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in
life results in a decrease of entropy by increasing the entropy of the
natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in the
entropy of the natural environment?
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not
happen in a lifeless natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-15 04:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that
such condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It
is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions in
nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in
life results in a decrease of entropy by increasing the entropy of the
natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in the
entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.

Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly more
effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just passively
evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume energy by
converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a giant tree in
the middle of desert will always have a lower temperature than the
surrounding desert.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not
happen in a lifeless natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
Smiler
2017-04-16 01:22:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life
in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that
such condition will automatically generate life. It only provides
the necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It
is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions
in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in the
entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple things to
more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly more
effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just passively
evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume energy by
converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a giant tree in
the middle of desert will always have a lower temperature than the
surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless natural
environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
We don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-18 08:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life
in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that
such condition will automatically generate life. It only provides
the necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It
is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions
in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's quite
an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in the
entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple things to
more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law. Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment. The
natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy to
reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a local
phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life is
nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing energy.
It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It can't
happen in nature automatically.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly more
effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just passively
evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume energy by
converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a giant tree in
the middle of desert will always have a lower temperature than the
surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless natural
environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
If it doesn't contradict with science, why don't you believe me?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
We don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question, and I'm open for review. To bad you are
unable to review my scientific understanding about the second law.
Smiler
2017-04-19 00:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The
default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with
Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the
creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but
it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested
the condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe
that such condition will automatically generate life. It only
provides the necessary condition for life to arise. It has not
provided the sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's
incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's quite
an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple things
to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the potato
plant.
Post by aaa
The
natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy to
reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a local
phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life is
nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing energy.
It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It can't
happen in nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless natural
environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
If it doesn't contradict with science, why don't you believe me?
All your insane unevidenced assertions contradict science.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
We don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question,
No you didn't, liar. Where is your peer reviewed scientific evidence?
Post by aaa
and I'm open for review. To bad you are
unable to review my scientific understanding about the second law.
You have no understanding of the second law. The earth is not a closed
system.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-19 18:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The
default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with
Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the
creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but
it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested
the condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe
that such condition will automatically generate life. It only
provides the necessary condition for life to arise. It has not
provided the sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's
incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's quite
an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple things
to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the potato
plant.
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They are
very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about the
origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin. That's
assuming the conclusion.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The
natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy to
reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a local
phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life is
nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing energy.
It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It can't
happen in nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so clueless.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless natural
environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
If it doesn't contradict with science, why don't you believe me?
All your insane unevidenced assertions contradict science.
Yet, you can't refute my understanding with science.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
We don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question,
No you didn't, liar. Where is your peer reviewed scientific evidence?
I have talked about the second law in here repeatedly. No one has been
able to prove me wrong. I consider that a good evidence.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
and I'm open for review. To bad you are
unable to review my scientific understanding about the second law.
You have no understanding of the second law. The earth is not a closed
system.
The second law is just like the gravity. It applies to all systems.
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-20 02:14:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
That is because you HAVE no scientific evidence.




"This human world is only five thousand years old."

"aaa", April 18, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/n8zo3kf
aaa
2017-04-21 04:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
That is because you HAVE no scientific evidence.
My understanding and explanation of the second law regarding life is the
scientific evidence.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"This human world is only five thousand years old."
"aaa", April 18, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/n8zo3kf
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-21 12:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
That is because you HAVE no scientific evidence.
My understanding and explanation of the second law regarding life is the
scientific evidence.
Show us what the second law says about the age of the earth.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
"This human world is only five thousand years old."
"aaa", April 18, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/n8zo3kf
Smiler
2017-04-20 02:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an
observable fact about which we theorise. Life originated
somehow. The default hypothesis to which the scientific
community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has
zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even
the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise,
but it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only
suggested the condition for life to arise, but there is no
reason to believe that such condition will automatically
generate life. It only provides the necessary condition for life
to arise. It has not provided the sufficient condition to
guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction
are correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's
quite an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple
things to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Your imagined version of it can be denied.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the
potato plant.
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They are
very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about the
origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin. That's
assuming the conclusion.
You wrote: "Energy can not automatically be stored and converted in the
natural environment." I proved it can.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy
to reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a
local phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life
is nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing
energy. It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It
can't happen in nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
You wrote: "The natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of
energy to reach maximum entropy." I proved it doesn't _always_.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so clueless.
Avoidance noted. Now answer the question: Where does a giant tree in the
middle of a desert get its water from?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless
natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
Your supposed evidence is NOT scientific.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
If it doesn't contradict with science, why don't you believe me?
All your insane unevidenced assertions contradict science.
Yet, you can't refute my understanding with science.
I don't need to refute that for which you haven't shown evidence.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life
with such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
We don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question,
No you didn't, liar. Where is your peer reviewed scientific evidence?
I have talked about the second law in here repeatedly. No one has been
able to prove me wrong. I consider that a good evidence.
You have talked nonsense repeatedly. The second law *only* applies in a
closed system and the earth isn't a closed system.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
and I'm open for review. To bad you are unable to review my scientific
understanding about the second law.
You have no understanding of the second law. The earth is not a closed
system.
The second law is just like the gravity. It applies to all systems.
Nope. It only applies to closed systems.

From Wiki:
"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an
_ISOLATED_ system can only increase over time."

Isolated = closed.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-21 05:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an
observable fact about which we theorise. Life originated
somehow. The default hypothesis to which the scientific
community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has
zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even
the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise,
but it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only
suggested the condition for life to arise, but there is no
reason to believe that such condition will automatically
generate life. It only provides the necessary condition for life
to arise. It has not provided the sufficient condition to
guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction
are correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's
quite an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple
things to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Your imagined version of it can be denied.
My understanding of the second law is solid.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the
potato plant.
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They are
very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about the
origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin. That's
assuming the conclusion.
You wrote: "Energy can not automatically be stored and converted in the
natural environment." I proved it can.
No. You have only proved life can, which is actually my point.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy
to reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a
local phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life
is nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing
energy. It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It
can't happen in nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
You wrote: "The natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of
energy to reach maximum entropy." I proved it doesn't _always_.
Only life doesn't, which is my point. You have only proved my point.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so clueless.
Avoidance noted. Now answer the question: Where does a giant tree in the
middle of a desert get its water from?
Why don't you find it out yourself?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless
natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
Your supposed evidence is NOT scientific.
The second law is my scientific evidence.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
If it doesn't contradict with science, why don't you believe me?
All your insane unevidenced assertions contradict science.
Yet, you can't refute my understanding with science.
I don't need to refute that for which you haven't shown evidence.
The second law is the evidence.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life
with such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
We don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question,
No you didn't, liar. Where is your peer reviewed scientific evidence?
I have talked about the second law in here repeatedly. No one has been
able to prove me wrong. I consider that a good evidence.
You have talked nonsense repeatedly. The second law *only* applies in a
closed system and the earth isn't a closed system.
False. The second law applies to everything in the entire universe.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
and I'm open for review. To bad you are unable to review my scientific
understanding about the second law.
You have no understanding of the second law. The earth is not a closed
system.
The second law is just like the gravity. It applies to all systems.
Nope. It only applies to closed systems.
The entire universe is a closed system.
Post by Smiler
"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an
_ISOLATED_ system can only increase over time."
Isolated = closed.
The universe is isolated.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-22 07:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The
default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with
Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the
creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but
it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested
the condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe
that such condition will automatically generate life. It only
provides the necessary condition for life to arise. It has not
provided the sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's
incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's quite
an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple things
to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the potato
plant.
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They are
very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about the
origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin. That's
assuming the conclusion.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The
natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy to
reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a local
phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life is
nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing energy.
It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It can't
happen in nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so clueless.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless natural
environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
What "scientific evidence" are you talking about? I've seen not one reference to a peer-reviewed journal article to support any of your nonsense.

So, chalk up another lie to the aaashole.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-22 15:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 02:05:18 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The
default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with
Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the
creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that
way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but
it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested
the condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe
that such condition will automatically generate life. It only
provides the necessary condition for life to arise. It has not
provided the sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's
incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's quite
an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple things
to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Nobody is denying it - it simply does not apply because the Earth is
an open system - energy from the sun reduces its entropy. .
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
What a fucking moron.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the potato
plant.
The sea stores thermal energy which is transferred by the Gulf Stream
to North West Europe. It's why Britain is the same latitude as
Labrador but a heck of a lot less cold.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They are
Liar.

Why does the moron keep repeating what has long since ceased to be an
honest mistake, about something which is high-school physics?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about the
origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin. That's
What a fucking moron. At one time there was no life, and later there
was.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
assuming the conclusion.
Liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The
natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy to
reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a local
phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life is
nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing energy.
It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It can't
happen in nature automatically.
Liar.

The second law only applies to closed systems, where there is no
energy input from outside.

The Earth is not a closed system.

Has the moron never noticed that hot yellow thing in the sky, called
the sun?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
Liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so clueless.
Project much, pathological liar?

These pig-ignorant stupids always resort to personal lies because they
can't support their unsolicited nonsense, but can't admit it.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless natural
environment.
Liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
He don't need no stinking peer reviewed evidence.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
Provided over and over again, pathological liar. I've repeated it
again at the bottom of this reply.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot, who needs to stop
projecting his own deficiencies.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim.
Liar.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
WHAT FUCKING "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE", in-your-face liar?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What "scientific evidence" are you talking about? I've seen not one reference
to a peer-reviewed journal article to support any of your nonsense.
He can't.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
So, chalk up another lie to the aaashole.
That's all he's got.

But does he have to besot in-your-face with it in a place where we
have got together to discuss our own business and not his irrelevant,
off-topic nonsense?
JTEM
2017-04-22 19:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody is denying it - it simply does not apply because the Earth is
an open system - energy from the sun reduces its entropy. .
Give us some examples of the smallest closed systems.
Also, give us some examples of the largest closed
systems, short of the universe itself.

Quite frankly, you haven't a frigging clue what you're
talking about. You're merely regurgitating talking
points you heard/read elsewhere without the slightest
understanding.

Want to claim differently. Fine. YOU are the one speaking
of "Closed Systems" so YOU give us some examples. Present
to us the smallest (natural) closed systems, and some of
the largest.

PREDICTION: You'll pretend you didn't see this post.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159823578129
JTEM
2017-04-22 18:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
I've seen not one reference to a peer-reviewed
journal article to support any of your nonsense.
Wow, how's that for an argument from authority: "An
authority hasn't told me this, so I won't accept
anything."

What are you disputing? Do you know? Then spell it
out: What specifically are you disputing?

SPECIFICALLY. Be specific. Be detailed. Explain what
you mean.

Is this REALLY too difficult for you? If so, you honestly
don't have the mental capacity to speak intelligently on
the subject.

So stop already.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159823578129
aaa
2017-04-23 08:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
fact about which we theorise. Life originated
somehow. The default hypothesis to which the
scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with
Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains a hypothesis. The experimental evidence
hints at it's plausibility but even the creation
of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life
_can_ arise that way. Proving that it _did_ arise
that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life
to arise, but it does not provide the cause for
life to arise. It only suggested the condition for
life to arise, but there is no reason to believe
that such condition will automatically generate
life. It only provides the necessary condition for
life to arise. It has not provided the sufficient
condition to guarantee life to arise. It's
incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist,
given enough time, life will arise, no god
necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary
condition is not a sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math
class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the
reaction are correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all
chemical reactions in nature only result in an increase
of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase
of entropy?
No answer? Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but
it's quite an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of
entropy by increasing the entropy of the natural
environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the
increase in the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and
infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars.
Simple things to more complex things, something you claim
cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the
second law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Energy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural
environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for
the potato plant.
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They
are very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about
the origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin.
That's assuming the conclusion.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of
energy to reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy
fluctuation is only a local phenomenon to reach that goal. The
sugar creation in plant life is nothing like water turning into
ice. It's not created by losing energy. It's created by
absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It can't happen in
nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is
greatly more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It
does not just passively evaporates water to export entropy.
It can also consume energy by converting it into sugar in
the process. As the result, a giant tree in the middle of
desert will always have a lower temperature than the
surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its
water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so
clueless.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not happen in a
lifeless natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is
your scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer
reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better
understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely
your insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in
my scientific evidence.
What "scientific evidence" are you talking about? I've seen not one
reference to a peer-reviewed journal article to support any of your
nonsense.
There is no need of peer review. It's just simple scientific
understanding that you never paid any attention to. Anyone who has the
basic understanding about the second law can recognize my simple point.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
So, chalk up another lie to the aaashole.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-16 19:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that
way. Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be
possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
No, God is missing, because God is not real.
Like your understanding.
aaa
2017-04-18 20:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that
way. Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be
possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
No, God is missing, because God is not real.
Like your understanding.
No. God is missing because science can not understand God. God can only
be understood by philosophy. That's why the origin of life should never
have been a scientific study. It should only be a philosophical study
instead.
JTEM
2017-04-21 05:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise
Or it would, if an abiogenesis hypothesis ever
survived scientific scrutiny.

There is no "Theory" of abiogenesis.

There is no "Hypothesis" of abiogenesis.

It's an assumption. That's all it is. And the
collective is too out of touch with reality
to realize that what they think of as a "Fact"
is unprovable




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159809388668
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 06:56:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by aaa
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise
Or it would, if an abiogenesis hypothesis ever
survived scientific scrutiny.
There is no "Theory" of abiogenesis.
There is no "Hypothesis" of abiogenesis.
It's an assumption.
So you think life has ALWAYS existed on earth? Even before Earth existed?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-21 12:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:56:08 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
Post by aaa
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise
Or it would, if an abiogenesis hypothesis ever
survived scientific scrutiny.
There is no "Theory" of abiogenesis.
There is no "Hypothesis" of abiogenesis.
It's an assumption.
So you think life has ALWAYS existed on earth? Even before Earth existed?
He's insane.

He has his own private definition for abiogenesis, which includes "and
the god I 'know' did it, didn't do it".

It's like redefining a fridge as a square-wheeled trolley car so he
can say there is no such thing as a fridge.

And it's not the only thing he has redefined so he pretend it doesn't
exist.

The reason he pretends it never happened, is because scientific
research into it hasn't shown any need for a god because everything it
has found is completely natural - including the formation of extremely
simple cells which reproduce and even evolve nucleic acids over
subsequent generations.

Do these morons seriously imagine that the research never happened,
and that the researchers lie about it the way creationists do to fool
half the US population with less than average IQ?
JTEM
2017-04-23 07:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
There is no "Theory" of abiogenesis.
There is no "Hypothesis" of abiogenesis.
It's an assumption.
So you think life has ALWAYS existed on earth? Even before Earth existed?
What answer might possibly change the FACT that
there is no valid theory of abiogenesis, there
isn't even a valid hypothesis?

Honestly, even for a mental case hiding behind a
sock puppet, you sure are dumb...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159818277979
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-23 08:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
There is no "Theory" of abiogenesis.
There is no "Hypothesis" of abiogenesis.
It's an assumption.
So you think life has ALWAYS existed on earth? Even before Earth existed?
What answer might possibly change the FACT that
there is no valid theory of abiogenesis, there
isn't even a valid hypothesis?
So what? You say that like it's a bad thing.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
JTEM
2017-04-24 03:32:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by JTEM
There is no "Theory" of abiogenesis.
There is no "Hypothesis" of abiogenesis.
It's an assumption.
So you think life has ALWAYS existed on earth? Even before Earth existed?
What answer might possibly change the FACT that
there is no valid theory of abiogenesis, there
isn't even a valid hypothesis?
So what? You say that like it's a bad thing.
The fact that you're in this thread attacking me
for stating the above -- you are defending the
opposite -- strongly suggests that you see it as
a bad thing.

Or are you so fucked up you don't even know what
you're arguing?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159887709768
JTEM
2017-04-21 05:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory
That's right, it's not. Every last abiogenesis
hypothesis has been scientifically falsified.

IT'S BEEN DISPROVEN!
Post by Malcolm McMahon
its an observable fact
This is fantasy.

The exact same "Argument" can be used for creationism.

In fact, IT IS the exact same argument that has been
used by many creationists!

If you were in your right mind, and stopped being so
goddamn emotional, you'd realize that you have long
since rejected this garbage "argument."

Hypocrite.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community
leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
There is no hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is
the basis for predictions, and these predictions can
be tested scientifically. No abiogenesis hypothesis
has ever withstood scientific testing.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It has zip to do with Darwin.
True. Darwin was a fraud -- a fairy tale invented
by the British elite to squash the Papist Mendel
and the Socialist Wallace.

However, abiogenesis has EVERYTHING to do with
evolution! If there's no abiogenesis then
creationism has to be right. And if creationism
is correct then it -- creationism -- can account
for all the various life forms, we no longer
require macro evolution. So, abiogenesis IS married
to evolution.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
It is NOT a hypothesis, you scientifically illiterate
dolt. A hypothesis serves as the basis for predictions,
predictions which can be tested and hence potentially
falsify a hypothesis. No potential falsification, no
valid hypothesis.

"abiogenesis" can not be falsified, not according to
the Faithful. No matter how many times an abiogenesis
hypothesis is falsified -- and they ALL have been
falsified -- the believers maintain their faith.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159809388668
Malcolm McMahon
2017-04-21 09:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory
That's right, it's not. Every last abiogenesis
hypothesis has been scientifically falsified.
IT'S BEEN DISPROVEN!
We ARE proof, for all abiogenesis says is that once there was no biology (hence "bio") and then there was. If God stuck his finger down out of the sky and zapped the first biological entities into existence that's _still_ abiogensis. Just a different belief about the _mechanism_.

I'm assuming you don't believe God is biological.

It doesn't matter to the ToE what that mechanism was. Once you have an imperfect replicator in an environment that imposes a fitness criteria on which replicators replicate and which don't then that's enough for the ToE to apply.

The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis proposes, in very general terms, a possible route to abiogensis. As a creationist, you cling to another.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-21 12:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by JTEM
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory
That's right, it's not. Every last abiogenesis
hypothesis has been scientifically falsified.
IT'S BEEN DISPROVEN!
We ARE proof, for all abiogenesis says is that once there was no biology (hence
"bio") and then there was. If God stuck his finger down out of the sky and zapped
the first biological entities into existence that's _still_ abiogensis. Just a different
belief about the _mechanism_.
I'm assuming you don't believe God is biological.
It doesn't matter to the ToE what that mechanism was. Once you have an
imperfect replicator in an environment that imposes a fitness criteria on
which replicators replicate and which don't then that's enough for the
ToE to apply.
The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis proposes, in very general terms, a possible
route to abiogensis. As a creationist, you cling to another.
The pioneering researchers in the field acknowledge that their work
followed on from that of Oparin and Haldane.
JTEM
2017-04-22 01:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
We ARE proof
That *Is* what many creationists argue. Yes. Like you,
they insists that the fact that we exists is "Proof"
that we were divinely created -- because otherwise we
wouldn't be here.

Same argument. It's the EXACT SAME argument.

And you're validating it. You are arguing here, now,
that it's a valid argument.

Stop that.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159820942846
Loading...