Discussion:
aaa and the 2nd law in action
(too old to reply)
ernobe
2017-05-23 23:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He is saying
that evolution goes against the 2nd law. Others are saying that
mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in action, and that there is no
need to go against it.

They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.

Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.

The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?

If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely. Therefore, it is apparent that this physical
world is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal, capable of perfection in
the worlds of God.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Davej
2017-05-23 23:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Because while evolution can discard errant copies by their
failure to survive our bodies have no such filtering mechanism,
so copying errors accumulate.
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world is
imperfect, deficient.
That's simply because life is a randomized Rube-Goldberg type
of design where we should be happy we don't die immediately
after sex. All evolution cares about is reproductive success.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-05-24 00:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Common knowledge apart from in home-skooled creationists.
Post by Davej
Because while evolution can discard errant copies by their
failure to survive our bodies have no such filtering mechanism,
so copying errors accumulate.
There's a bit more to it than that.

Each time a chromosome is duplicated, the length of the telomeres
which protect the ends, is reduced.

This is like a ticking clock, and eventually the chromosomes are no
longer protected.
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world is
imperfect, deficient.
That's simply because life is a randomized Rube-Goldberg type
of design where we should be happy we don't die immediately
after sex. All evolution cares about is reproductive success.
This is why the dieases of old age are not selected against, because
they happen after the reproductive years.
Ted
2017-05-24 03:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Common knowledge apart from in home-skooled creationists.
Post by Davej
Because while evolution can discard errant copies by their
failure to survive our bodies have no such filtering mechanism,
so copying errors accumulate.
There's a bit more to it than that.
Each time a chromosome is duplicated, the length of the telomeres
which protect the ends, is reduced.
This is like a ticking clock, and eventually the chromosomes are no
longer protected.
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world is
imperfect, deficient.
That's simply because life is a randomized Rube-Goldberg type
of design where we should be happy we don't die immediately
after sex. All evolution cares about is reproductive success.
This is why the dieases of old age are not selected against, because
they happen after the reproductive years.
Exactly.
--
It always ceases to amaze me how many people could care less.
Ted
2017-05-24 03:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Because while evolution can discard errant copies by their
failure to survive our bodies have no such filtering mechanism,
so copying errors accumulate.
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world is
imperfect, deficient.
That's simply because life is a randomized Rube-Goldberg type
of design where we should be happy we don't die immediately
after sex. All evolution cares about is reproductive success.
Yep, but reproductive success for humans includes a bit more than sex,
which is why 'luck' isn't the reason we don't die immediately afterward.
--
It always ceases to amaze me how many people could care less.
Don Martin
2017-05-24 14:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Because while evolution can discard errant copies by their
failure to survive our bodies have no such filtering mechanism,
so copying errors accumulate.
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world is
imperfect, deficient.
That's simply because life is a randomized Rube-Goldberg type
of design where we should be happy we don't die immediately
after sex. All evolution cares about is reproductive success.
Death after spawning seems to work fine for Pacific salmon.
--
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.
Alex W.
2017-05-24 22:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Because while evolution can discard errant copies by their
failure to survive our bodies have no such filtering mechanism,
so copying errors accumulate.
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world is
imperfect, deficient.
That's simply because life is a randomized Rube-Goldberg type
of design where we should be happy we don't die immediately
after sex. All evolution cares about is reproductive success.
Death after spawning seems to work fine for Pacific salmon.
Works fine for the bears, too...
Smiler
2017-05-24 01:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of evolution.
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed system.
The earth is NOT a closed system.
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in
action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to evolution.
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
Genetics.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely.
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of physical
parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would continue
indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal,
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
--
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
2017-05-24 03:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of evolution.
I don't have any theory of evolution. I'm talking about *the* theory of
evolution.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed system.
The earth is NOT a closed system.
No. It's doesn't matter whether the system is open or closed. I will go
wherever you want to go. You define the system and I will prove
evolution wrong. I don't care about your stupid system.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in
action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to evolution.
That's like saying that gravity doesn't apply to an airplane without
wings. Evolution is just like an airplane without wings. It only flies
in the minds of evolutionists.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
Genetics.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely.
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of physical
parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would continue
indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal,
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have is just blind denial.
You have nothing else to offer.
Yap Honghor
2017-05-24 03:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of evolution.
I don't have any theory of evolution. I'm talking about *the* theory of
evolution.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed system.
The earth is NOT a closed system.
No. It's doesn't matter whether the system is open or closed. I will go
wherever you want to go. You define the system and I will prove
evolution wrong. I don't care about your stupid system.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in
action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to evolution.
That's like saying that gravity doesn't apply to an airplane without
wings. Evolution is just like an airplane without wings. It only flies
in the minds of evolutionists.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
Genetics.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely.
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of physical
parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would continue
indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal,
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have is just blind denial.
You have nothing else to offer.
Why are you wanting to discuss science and evolution when you have a deity pixie or spiritual as you call it????

I only observe that your spiritual/pixie/deity has no capability to create human or a biological species on the Moon !!!!!!!!!!!!!
<IT DOES NOT EXIST>
aaa
2017-05-24 15:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of
mutation in evolution has nothing to do with his theory of
evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of evolution.
I don't have any theory of evolution. I'm talking about *the*
theory of evolution.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed
system. The earth is NOT a closed system.
No. It's doesn't matter whether the system is open or closed. I
will go wherever you want to go. You define the system and I will
prove evolution wrong. I don't care about your stupid system.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law
in action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to
evolution.
That's like saying that gravity doesn't apply to an airplane
without wings. Evolution is just like an airplane without wings. It
only flies in the minds of evolutionists.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only
genetic mutations.
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely
renewed, so in a sense we are completely new beings. You can
call it a mutation or part of our God given evolution. The
point is that it has been renewed because according to the 2nd
law the atomic particles in the molecules are tending to
disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you want
to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an
external force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but
simply by the regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Genetics.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and
aggregation of physical particles, there would be no reason for
it come apart: it would continue indefinitely.
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of
physical parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it
would continue indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no
aggregation of particles, however perfect, can continue. As
our bodies are renewed, each successive renewal is one more
step removed from its original perfection, and so acquires the
seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only mans' mind, consciense
and spirit are eternal,
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have is just blind
denial. You have nothing else to offer.
Why are you wanting to discuss science and evolution when you have a
deity pixie or spiritual as you call it????
Because all human knowledge comes from God.
Post by Yap Honghor
I only observe that your spiritual/pixie/deity has no capability to
create human or a biological species on the Moon !!!!!!!!!!!!! <IT
DOES NOT EXIST>
That's a poor observation. You have no idea about God. You don't know
how to observe the work of God.
Kit
2017-05-24 18:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of
mutation in evolution has nothing to do with his theory of
evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of evolution.
I don't have any theory of evolution. I'm talking about *the*
theory of evolution.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed
system. The earth is NOT a closed system.
No. It's doesn't matter whether the system is open or closed. I
will go wherever you want to go. You define the system and I will
prove evolution wrong. I don't care about your stupid system.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law
in action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to evolution.
That's like saying that gravity doesn't apply to an airplane
without wings. Evolution is just like an airplane without wings. It
only flies in the minds of evolutionists.
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only
genetic mutations.
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely
renewed, so in a sense we are completely new beings. You can
call it a mutation or part of our God given evolution. The
point is that it has been renewed because according to the 2nd
law the atomic particles in the molecules are tending to
disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you want
to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an
external force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but
simply by the regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Genetics.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and
aggregation of physical particles, there would be no reason for
it come apart: it would continue indefinitely.
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of
physical parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it
would continue indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no
aggregation of particles, however perfect, can continue. As
our bodies are renewed, each successive renewal is one more
step removed from its original perfection, and so acquires the
seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only mans' mind, consciense
and spirit are eternal,
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have is just blind
denial. You have nothing else to offer.
Why are you wanting to discuss science and evolution when you have a
deity pixie or spiritual as you call it????
Because all human knowledge comes from God.
Post by Yap Honghor
I only observe that your spiritual/pixie/deity has no capability to
create human or a biological species on the Moon !!!!!!!!!!!!! <IT
DOES NOT EXIST>
That's a poor observation. You have no idea about God. You don't know
how to observe the work of God.
And you know how to observe the work of God?
On what basis do you determine that any given work is "the work of God" as opposed to being caused by some other entity or action? Please elucidate.

-- Kit
Peter Pan
2017-05-24 18:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kit
Post by aaa
That's a poor observation. You have no idea about God. You don't know
how to observe the work of God.
And you know how to observe the work of God?
On what basis do you determine that any given work is "the work of God" as opposed to being caused by some other entity or action? Please elucidate.
If he doesn't understand something, then to him, it
proves Goddidit or "Intelligent Design".

Please fix your line lengths.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-05-24 19:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of
mutation in evolution has nothing to do with his theory of
evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of evolution.
I don't have any theory of evolution. I'm talking about *the*
theory of evolution.
Liar. The Niunian loonie has made up his own nonsensical "theory".
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed
system. The earth is NOT a closed system.
No. It's doesn't matter whether the system is open or closed. I
will go wherever you want to go. You define the system and I will
prove evolution wrong. I don't care about your stupid system.
Of course it does, liar who has had this corrected over and over
again.

An isolated system would not have the energy input from the sun
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law
in action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to evolution.
That's like saying that gravity doesn't apply to an airplane
without wings. Evolution is just like an airplane without wings. It
only flies in the minds of evolutionists.
Liar. Several times over.

For starters, there is no such thing as an evolutionist - that is a
dishonest creationist canard to try and pretend that understanding how
the world works, is an ideology which somehow competes with theirs.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only
genetic mutations.
What a fucking moron.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Obviously.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely
renewed, so in a sense we are completely new beings. You can
call it a mutation or part of our God given evolution. The
WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron who invokes it in the
objective, scientific arena before he has provided the necessary
scientific justification for it?
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
point is that it has been renewed because according to the 2nd
law the atomic particles in the molecules are tending to
disorder, and to come apart.
That is not the 2LOT, deliberate, transparent liar.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Then, whatever the name you want
to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an
external force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but
simply by the regeneration of the tissues.
More bollocks.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Look up "telomeres", imbecile.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Genetics.
Specifically the telomeres at the ends of the chromosomes. These are
sequences which protect the ends. But each time a chromosome is
duplicated, the sequence gets shorter until there is no protection.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and
aggregation of physical particles, there would be no reason for
it come apart: it would continue indefinitely.
The idiot's nonsense is way, way beyond wrong.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of
physical parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it
would continue indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Like most theists, he is too stupid to understand just how much only
he and his fellow believers take for granted, which people outside it
don't, and even his fellow believers who can think outside the box
when they have placed themselves outside it.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no
aggregation of particles, however perfect, can continue. As
Liar.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
our bodies are renewed, each successive renewal is one more
step removed from its original perfection, and so acquires the
seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only mans' mind, consciense
and spirit are eternal,
Idiot.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
WHAT FUCKING GOD?

Where did you demonstrate it objectively and scientifically before
rudely and stupidly invoking it outside the box, imbecile?
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have is just blind
denial. You have nothing else to offer.
The usual personally nasty lie. He has nothing else to offer.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Why are you wanting to discuss science and evolution when you have a
deity pixie or spiritual as you call it????
Because all human knowledge comes from God.
PROVE IT, LIAR.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
I only observe that your spiritual/pixie/deity has no capability to
create human or a biological species on the Moon !!!!!!!!!!!!! <IT
DOES NOT EXIST>
That's a poor observation.
Conclusion, liar.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
You have no idea about God.
Liar. It's a baseless religious belief implanted which stupid people
imagine is universally granted as fact.
Post by aaa
You don't know
Post by aaa
how to observe the work of God.
WHAT FUCKING WORK OF WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron?
Post by aaa
And you know how to observe the work of God?
He's insane.
Post by aaa
On what basis do you determine that any given work is "the work of God"
as opposed to being caused by some other entity or action? Please elucidate.
Because the moron's religious brainwashing sez everything is.

It's the difference between his daddy bringing a toddler called
Niunian a kitten and saying..

"Here's this kitten that has been rescued and needed a home"

vs

"Here's a kitten that God has given us"

Do that with every word baby Niunian learned, and everything becomes
evidence for it.

Just like every other loonie who says the evidence is all around us.
Post by aaa
-- Kit
Smiler
2017-05-24 23:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution.
_His_ theory of evolution isn't anywhere near _the_ theory of
evolution.
I don't have any theory of evolution. I'm talking about *the* theory of
evolution.
Which you have completely wrong.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
He is saying that evolution goes against the 2nd law.
By ignoring the part that says that it only applies in a closed system.
The earth is NOT a closed system.
No. It's doesn't matter whether the system is open or closed.
It does to the second law.
Post by aaa
I will go wherever you want to go.
Away from here.
Post by aaa
You define the system and I will prove
evolution wrong. I don't care about your stupid system.
The what would be the point of teaching you what is right?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
Others are saying that mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in
action, and that there is no need to go against it.
Nope. Others are saying that the second law doesn't apply to evolution.
That's like saying that gravity doesn't apply to an airplane without
wings. Evolution is just like an airplane without wings. It only flies
in the minds of evolutionists.
That would be only in your insane mind, liar.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
How can we do that. All mutations are genetic.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed,
so in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a
mutation or part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has
been renewed because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in
the molecules are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then,
whatever the name you want to apply to it, the process is reversed,
but not by an external force applied to stop it or keep it in check,
but simply by the regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on
indefinitely, why do we age?
Genetics.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it
would continue indefinitely.
If a car arose simply by the coming together and aggregation of
physical parts, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely?????
Post by ernobe
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical world
Until you provide evidence for it, there is no other.
Post by ernobe
is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation of
particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing.
Only mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal,
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by ernobe
capable of perfection in the worlds of God.
What god? The one for which you cannot show any evidence?
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have is just blind denial.
You have nothing else to offer.
Whenever it comes to the spiritual, all you have are just blind assertions.
You have nothing else to offer.
--
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
2017-05-24 02:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He is saying
that evolution goes against the 2nd law. Others are saying that
mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in action, and that there is no
need to go against it.
Actually, I deny that the role of mutation in the theory of evolution is
the correct explanation of the scientific fact of DNA change. DNA change
only appears to be random, but the beneficial DNA change is an orderly
construction that goes against the second law. Evolution has ignored
this fact. Random DNA change is in fact the second law in action because
it corrupts the functioning DNA molecule rending it useless. The
beneficial DNA change, however, provides life with the new ability to
deal with a life threatening situation. It is an improved DNA code with
purpose and solution. It's the result of building up instead of tearing
down the previous DNA code. Therefore, the beneficial DNA change is an
action going against the second law.
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
Yes, I agree to a certain extent. Random mutation is in fact the second
law in action to corrupt life. However, the beneficial DNA change is the
action going against the second law to improve life. They are not the
same thing. For life to rise and survive in nature, life has to fight
against the second law, and the beneficial DNA change is the evidence of
life fighting against the second law.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
This internal force that keeps us alive is called intelligence. It is
aware of the effect of the second law that is causing tissues to die,
and it is generating new issues to replace the old ones by going against
the second law.
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
Aging simply means the intelligent force within us is not constant. It
can be weakened when our connection with the source of this intelligent
force become weak. This source is God.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely. Therefore, it is apparent that this physical
world is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal, capable of perfection in
the worlds of God.
Yes.
Ted
2017-05-24 03:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He is saying
that evolution goes against the 2nd law. Others are saying that
mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in action, and that there is no
need to go against it.
Actually, I deny that the role of mutation in the theory of evolution is
the correct explanation of the scientific fact of DNA change. DNA change
only appears to be random, but the beneficial DNA change is an orderly
construction that goes against the second law. Evolution has ignored this
fact. Random DNA change is in fact the second law in action because it
corrupts the functioning DNA molecule rending it useless. The beneficial
DNA change, however, provides life with the new ability to deal with a
life threatening situation. It is an improved DNA code with purpose and
solution. It's the result of building up instead of tearing down the
previous DNA code. Therefore, the beneficial DNA change is an action
going against the second law.
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
Yes, I agree to a certain extent. Random mutation is in fact the second
law in action to corrupt life. However, the beneficial DNA change is the
action going against the second law to improve life. They are not the
same thing. For life to rise and survive in nature, life has to fight
against the second law, and the beneficial DNA change is the evidence of
life fighting against the second law.
Post by ernobe
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
This internal force that keeps us alive is called intelligence. It is
aware of the effect of the second law that is causing tissues to die, and
it is generating new issues to replace the old ones by going against the second law.
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
Aging simply means the intelligent force within us is not constant. It
can be weakened when our connection with the source of this intelligent
force become weak. This source is God.
Post by ernobe
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely. Therefore, it is apparent that this physical
world is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal, capable of perfection in
the worlds of God.
Yes.
Luke 21:23, Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17

"Woe to them that give suck in those days!"
--
It always ceases to amaze me how many people could care less.
Ted
2017-05-24 03:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
aaa is saying that the scientific facts about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He is saying
that evolution goes against the 2nd law. Others are saying that
mutations are simply part of the 2nd law in action, and that there is no
need to go against it.
Perhaps, but it's the third law that's the most convincing, not the 2nd. F
= ma. Have you read any Werner Heisenberg?
Post by ernobe
They are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution. The point is that it has been renewed
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart. Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely. Therefore, it is apparent that this physical
world is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue. As our bodies are renewed,
each successive renewal is one more step removed from its original
perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing. Only
mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal, capable of perfection in
the worlds of God.
--
It always ceases to amaze me how many people could care less.
Blue Ringed 8
2017-05-24 22:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hmmm. You asked this same thing in another thread, and I
What I said is about the second law. Your scientific fact is not going
to break the second

If it's a scientific fact, then it cannot break the second law.
He is saying that your scientific fact about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He is saying
that evolution goes against the 2nd law. You are saying that mutations
are simply part of the 2nd law in action, and that there is no need to
go against it.
You are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
mutations.
Um, not sure I'm following that. His "theory of evolution" is "goddidit",
or some variation on that. And I'm afraid I'm not understanding what a non-
genetic mutation might be.
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution.
The point is that it has been renewed
Well, lessee here...

Our cells are not renewed every seven years. Cells -- most cells, not all -
- are constantly being replaced. A good thing, as about 50 million cells a
day die. But not every seven years, rather at widely differing rates. The
lining of your small intestine is replaced every 2-4 days, your epidermis
every 10-30 days, your red blood cells every four months, your central
nervous system? Never.

But they're not "renewed", they're replaced. And the replacement process
is imperfect, and the resulting errors accumulate as the process continues
over and over, during our lifetime.
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart.
Well, no ... the second law applies to collections of particles, not to
individual particles. Electrons don't get scratches on them. Photons don't
decay. Protons live forever, or if they don't, their lifetime is some time
greater than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. But
that's a quibble; my point is that our bodies are not being <POOF!>
magically reset somehow. New parts are slapped in for old parts, but the
new parts themselves are not factory perfect.
Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
Again, it is not reversed. Damaged cells are replaced, but the
replacements carry the accumulated errors of many many cell divisions.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
It goes on constantly, and as it does, the mutations accumulate. Copying
errors, insertions, deletions, frame shift errors, damage from radiation
and chemicals, and a host of other things.

But there is a built in mechanism for limiting the damage: the telomeres on
the ends of the chromosomes in essence count down the number of times the
cell has divided, and after a certain number of divisions, the chromosome
can no longer be copied and that cell will no longer divide. Which helps
limit the damage done by the accumulated mutations.

Of course cancer, being sneaky, often stumbles on a way to add back
telomeres, reset the countdown clock -- cancer cells can be, in essence,
immortal. OK, not literally, but very very long lived. Researchers in the
field use HeLa cancer cells, which have been reproducing, in vitro, for
seven decades. At a very accelerated rate compared to normal rates of cell
division.

And cancer itself is the result of an entire suite of mutations necessary for
cancer cells to arise and succeed. Each mutation is hugely unlikely, but
given trillions of cells dividing, the odds of one or more cells winning
that cumulative jackpot becomes very reasonable. Autopsies of men 90 years
or older find a 100 percent incidence of cancer of the prostate. Tiny tiny
errors accumulate, given enough repetitions.

But I digress. My answer to "why does not this process go on indefinitely"
is that it does, but it's not magic, it's imperfect, it's not renewal, the
after a while the errors begin to tell.
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
continue indefinitely.
Um, I don't follow that. If life arose purely through physical mechanisms,
then it could well be an imperfect error prone process needing only to be
able to hang on long enough to reproduce itself. There would be every
reason "for it to come apart". But "good enough" is satisfactory from the
viewpoint of evolution.
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical
world is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue.
As our bodies are renewed, each successive renewal is one more step removed
from its original perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing.
Only mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal, capable of perfection in
the worlds of God.
I don't see any significant disagreement on our part as regards the
physical manifestations discussed. Other than specific details

As to the last add-on, mind, conscience and spirit being eternal, I'm
afraid I'm not aware of any evidence for that.


BR-8
raven1
2017-05-24 23:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
Telomeres. Next question?
Loading...