Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 9 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:the thing is that apart form a designer, there is no natural mechanism that would organice molecules in a soup in to something that we would call life

Leroy is still trying to put god in the gap he's still trying to dig.

The mechanism is naturally occuring processes.

"I don't believe natural occuring processes can explain the origin of life"
"What other explanation do you have?"
"A magical designer using magic of course!"



well perhaps if you provide evidence for natural abiogenesis I would change my mind............o wait you are an atheist you are not suppose to provide any evidence for anything
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:32 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Dragan Glas wrote:It's not the best explanation, since you then have to explain the designer.


same is true with nature, every time we find an explanation an explanation for the explanation is needed.

And you've already ruled out the need for magic, so how does your designer accomplish this?

I don't know, but the how question is a separate question, you don't need to know how Egyptians build pyramids in order to conclude that Egyptians build pyramids.

A natural process is the simplest - and, therefore, best - explanation.

Kindest regards,

James


you have to stop committing the same mistakes over and over again.

simplicity is just one of many criteria used to determine the best explanation for something. simplicity is not the only nor the most important criteria.


by your logic, we have to conclude that we are Boltzmann Brains, and that life doesn't exist, life is an illusion, because that is the simplest explanation.


Always, when we see low entropy coming from high entropy we assume intelligent design, unless there is a natural mechanism that forces this low entropy pattern.......So why are you making an arbitrarily exception with abiogenesis?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:45 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3178Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:It's not the best explanation, since you then have to explain the designer.

same is true with nature, every time we find an explanation an explanation for the explanation is needed.

Nature exists.

If you want to posit a designer that pre-dates Nature, you then have to explain the designer.

We only have one thing to explain - you have two.

leroy wrote:
And you've already ruled out the need for magic, so how does your designer accomplish this?

I don't know, but the how question is a separate question, you don't need to know how Egyptians build pyramids in order to conclude that Egyptians build pyramids.

In this case, you do.

We know how the Egyptians built the pyramids because we know how humans build things.

A supernatural designer is a different matter, as we have no evidence for one, and - therefore - no evidence of how a supernatural designer would "build" anything.

leroy wrote:
A natural process is the simplest - and, therefore, best - explanation.

Kindest regards,

James

you have to stop committing the same mistakes over and over again.

simplicity is just one of many criteria used to determine the best explanation for something. simplicity is not the only nor the most important criteria.

It's the only relevant one as you can't explain a designer or how a designer works.

leroy wrote:by your logic, we have to conclude that we are Boltzmann Brains, and that life doesn't exist, life is an illusion, because that is the simplest explanation.

You keep tossing out this Boltzmann Brain idea - I, and others, have already explained that it doesn't save your designer idea.

leroy wrote:Always, when we see low entropy coming from high entropy we assume intelligent design, unless there is a natural mechanism that forces this low entropy pattern.......So why are you making an arbitrarily exception with abiogenesis?

Wrong definition of entropy - as others have already explained to you.

It's not about disorder/order, it's about energy through heat transfer, and work.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:33 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Inane, truly inane.

Because the Creationist doesn't understand science, and can't be arsed to do any hard work like reading scientific articles (even when they're delivered to the Creationist's lap)... they just assert in a designer and pretend that it's a coherent answer.

According to such a blind and self-gratifying position, every time 2 hydrogen atoms combine with an oxygen atom to form a water molecule, it's the result of a cosmic curtain-tweaker tugging at the laws of the universe to effect designed change.

Of course, to everyone else, the supposedly lacking mechanism is not only known, but is studied under one of the 3 primary branches of the physical sciences: chemistry.

As usual, the inane claim fails to comprehend that a well known, simple interaction which occurs naturally does not justify asserting the existence of a vastly more complex entity that we cannot observe, detect, or measure... we might as well say 'pixies do it'... and as usual the inane claimant fails to comprehend how logic works where asserting the need for a fifth wheel just provokes hilarity. And not just a fifth wheel, but an immaterial, extra-universe wheel at that!

Modern creationism - i.e. the science denial version - is wholly grounded on an argument from incredulity. They don't understand how nature works, can't be arsed to read up, and prefer their stupidly simplistic presuppositions to square the circle.

As is typical of our resident troll, he revels in this form of modern Creationism where no onus is ever accepted to establish the existence of a presupposed Creator, rather it's just asserted as being a solution to any difficulty the Creationist has in understanding nature. If intellectual honesty were a component of Creationism, then there'd be a very clear acknowledgment that the god claim is highly complex, involving knowledge that no human could possibly have, and therefore is not a real solution at all - it's just a convenient opiate to lull the lazy back to sleep.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:18 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Dragan Glas wrote:We know how the Eguptians built the pyramids because we know how humans build things.


It's a point I've made to many Creationists over the years, and it goes without saying that they included far more coherent and competent ones than this chap.

We know that human artifacts are designed because we employ metrics to infer and test design. We can list expected details of a given artifact according to how it was produced, and look for signs of that production method.

Creationists, of course, do not know how their God allegedly made the universe, and consequently cannot offer any explanation as to the kind of details which would allow us to infer and test design.

Really, it's all by-the-by anyway because we know how shit works, and LEROY et al. are no different than stone age tribesmen genuflecting to the volcano to appease it in abject fucking ignorance of the fact that there's no agency other than nature operating.

Creationist Methodology:

Image

Err, yes actually - 'we' can. And by 'we', I include 5 year olds.

And even if we couldn't then: tides go in, tides go out, therefore magic man in the sky.... is a fucking stupid answer serving only to self-gratify, not to do anything serious for the betterment of knowledge, honesty, or understanding. It's a non-answer, a dead-end, a text-book example of failure.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:23 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

How does life form?

Scientific answer: we're not exactly sure, but here are tens of thousands of papers by researchers over generations discovering and experimentally validating components of the hypothesized process.

Creationist answer: we're completely sure - God did it! How? Oh.... errr..... by uh... by... well, by being God, of course.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:35 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3473Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:

Incorrect. As I have already pointed out, Our modern hypotheses for abiogenesis fall well within our modern understanding of chemistry and biochemistry. Beyond that, until you define how you are using entropy in this context, anything you say about it is moot.

.


Ok so now that we agree on a definition of entropy, we can have a meaningful conversation.


Yes. Again, I am glad we are over your molehill.

:)

leroy wrote:So of all the modern naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis can you name one that explains how molecules in an organic soup in a state of high entropy, "evolved" in to something that we would call life (low entropy). If yes, can you explain why is that hypothesis better than design?


Metabolism First and the Origin of Life. It is better than design, because there is evidence for it.

leroy wrote:before posting random links, please makes sure that your source actually shows what I am asking for, Don't worry I wont reject the source by default even if the author has a different world view than I.


leroy wrote:Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.


Beyond that, we all know how you will reject evidence if it does not suit your preconceived notions. It is as if you do not understand that people can read and remember what you write.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:


I never had a problem with the definition, just its source.


yes, you did affirmed that the definition form Hack,s is not proper

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Moot point until you give us a proper definition of entropy. Again, we are waiting on you.


I will admit that I should have worded that statement better. However, my rejection was of the source and never the information as can be seen by my first response to you.


Yes but I was not asking if you like the source, I was asking about whether if the definition is accurate or not. it took you like 5 tries to answer to my question on whether if you agree with the definition or not. then you said that the definition is not proper then you changed your mind and implied that the definition is ok................can you at least admit that you are hard to follow?


You asked the same question multiple times and I answered the same way all but the last time when I made a mistake. Perhaps if you stopped asking questions that were already answered, you would stop getting confused.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I reject information from propaganda mills. What gave that away? Perhaps when I first stated that to you in response to your definition a week ago? Nice work there Sherlock. Again, if only you would read for comprehension.



Hack,s blog is a propagandist source.


Citation needed.

leroy wrote:what you actually mean is that you reject sources that come from authors with a different world view that yours.


:facepalm:

You really need to get a refund on those mind reading classes. This is sad.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:. As was hinted about earlier in this thread, if we were talking about race and you gave a definition from Stormfront I would also reject it.


that is the difference between you and I, If Stormfront provides an accurate definition of race I would accept it, I don't reject information just because I don't like the source.


At least one of us has standard. I guess I would not expect a slavery-apologist to reject Stormfront. Oh, and we all know you reject things that do not fit your preconceived notion.

leroy wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Now, going back to our analogy of the untidy desktop, this can now be described as an open system, because heat, matter and work can be exchanged in both directions across its boundary. As stated before, this is a system in which statistical entropy is high, due to the high probability of its configuration when measured against other possible configurations (there are more configurations of the system that are untidy than there are configurations that are tidy). In other words, and in compliance with the first of our interpretations above, it is a system which has a high number of equivalent configurations, since there are many 'untidy' configurations of the system, but only a few 'tidy' configurations. To bring the desktop to a state of lower entropy, i.e. a tidy desktop, requires the input of work. This work will increase the entropy of another system (your maid, or whoever does the tidying in your office), giving an increase in entropy overall. This, of course, ties the two definitions from different areas of science together, showing the relationship between them. They are not, of course, the same definition, but they are related. It is also the source of the idea of entropy as disorder.

In evolution, the role of the maid is played by that big shiny yellow thing in the sky. The Earth is an open system, which means that heat, work and matter can be exchanged in both directions across the boundary. The input of energy allowing a local decrease in entropy is provided in two forms, but mainly by the input of high-energy photons from the Sun. This allows photosynthesising organisms to extract carbon from the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and convert it into sugars. This is done at the expanse of an increase in entropy on the sun. Indeed, if Earth and Sun are thought of as a single system, then a local decrease in entropy via work input by one part of the system increases the entropy of the system overall.


just because Hack provided an accurate definition, that doesn't mean that he is correct about everything he said.

in his analogy the maid is substituted by random mutations and natural selection, not by the sun.


Wrong. The maid is substituted by the sun, because they are both putting energy into the system. I thought you said you understood entropy in this context?

leroy wrote:but it is irrelevant, because we are not talking about evolution, we are talking about abiogenesis.


We are talking about things going from high entropy to low entropy naturally. You brought this up as if it were some insurmountable challenge that had no explanation, yet that is simply not the case. All one needs is energy coming in to over come it. Again, I thought you said you understood entropy in this context?

Dragan Glass wrote:Wrong definition of entropy - as others have already explained to you.

It's not about disorder/order, it's about energy through heat transfer, and work.


Actually, we did agree to a different definition of entropy in this context. Dandan/Leroy made it clear that he was not talking about The Second Law.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:21 pm
YIM WWW
CollecemallPosts: 386Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:

well perhaps if you provide evidence for natural abiogenesis I would change my mind............o wait you are an atheist you are not suppose to provide any evidence for anything


We've been at this seriously for about 100 years. It's really impressive how much we know.

"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:43 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Collecemall wrote:We've been at this seriously for about 100 years. It's really impressive how much we know.


Sadly, it doesn't matter how much we know - this thread was split from another thread where a number of scientific papers were the topic which specifically evidenced parts of the process of abiogenesis, so LEROY had the opportunity to look at evidence if he that was really how he'd change his mind.

LEROY wrote:Of course I did not read the sources, I am taking the skeptic position, I don't have to read any sources al I have to so is read the titles, assume the content and proclaim logical fallacies and lies in the sources.


There's no way to oblige someone to review the evidence they deny exists, but they then can't oblige others to take their denial seriously.

Thanks for the vid - I'll watch that this evening! :)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:14 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:well perhaps if you provide evidence for natural abiogenesis I would change my mind............o wait you are an atheist you are not suppose to provide any evidence for anything

Well at least Leroy accepts that abiogenesis happened, therefore he disagrees with the original claim of the thread "Science law - life comes from life".
Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:03 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:well perhaps if you provide evidence for natural abiogenesis I would change my mind............o wait you are an atheist you are not suppose to provide any evidence for anything

*sigh*

Here it is again:
The inferred (by multiple independent methods) amino acid frequencies in the ancestors of the oldest known proteins strongly correlate with the distribution of amino acids produced in abiotic chemical reactions, and predicted to result from them by chemical thermodynamics. As one would expect if life originated by a blind, unguided physical and chemical process (aka a "natural" abiogenesis) whereby the first proteins were synthesized by polymerization of the sorts of amino acids that existed in the prebiotic environment.

Higgs PG, Pudritz RE. A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code.
Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90. [DOI: 10.1089/ast.2008.0280]

Trifonov EN. Consensus temporal order of amino acids and evolution of the triplet code.
Gene. 2000 Dec 30;261(1):139-51. [PMID: 11164045]

Brooks DJ, Fresco JR, Lesk AM, Singh M. Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1645-55. [PMID: 12270892]

This is evidence for a natural physical/chemical origin of life, and evidence against intelligent design, because this is the kind of evidence you would rationally predict if life originated by a chemical and physical process. But if life originated by intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted. For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2017. Yet that is not what we see. The evidence points to an origin by a natural physical/chemical reaction.

So there you go. There is in fact evidence for abiogenesis. I have posted this before and explained this to you, and you simply moved the goalposts and started babbling about complexity. Stop moving the goalposts. I'm not claiming I have a TOTAL SOLUTION to abiogenesis. But there really actually is evidence for it, which is what you asked for. Deal with it.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:19 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:
leroy wrote:well perhaps if you provide evidence for natural abiogenesis I would change my mind............o wait you are an atheist you are not suppose to provide any evidence for anything

*sigh*

Here it is again:
The inferred (by multiple independent methods) amino acid frequencies in the ancestors of the oldest known proteins strongly correlate with the distribution of amino acids produced in abiotic chemical reactions, and predicted to result from them by chemical thermodynamics. As one would expect if life originated by a blind, unguided physical and chemical process (aka a "natural" abiogenesis) whereby the first proteins were synthesized by polymerization of the sorts of amino acids that existed in the prebiotic environment.

Higgs PG, Pudritz RE. A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code.
Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90. [DOI: 10.1089/ast.2008.0280]

Trifonov EN. Consensus temporal order of amino acids and evolution of the triplet code.
Gene. 2000 Dec 30;261(1):139-51. [PMID: 11164045]

Brooks DJ, Fresco JR, Lesk AM, Singh M. Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1645-55. [PMID: 12270892]

This is evidence for a natural physical/chemical origin of life, and evidence against intelligent design, because this is the kind of evidence you would rationally predict if life originated by a chemical and physical process. But if life originated by intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted. For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2017. Yet that is not what we see. The evidence points to an origin by a natural physical/chemical reaction.

So there you go. There is in fact evidence for abiogenesis. I have posted this before and explained this to you, and you simply moved the goalposts and started babbling about complexity. Stop moving the goalposts. I'm not claiming I have a TOTAL SOLUTION to abiogenesis. But there really actually is evidence for it, which is what you asked for. Deal with it.

Then again not only we have absolutely zero evidence for supernatural (as opposed to natural) abiogenesis, we have zero evidence for anything supernatural. Furthermore the idea is not only unfalsifiable but also untestable. It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it's hardly what one could call a coherrent thought.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:*sigh*

Here it is again:
The inferred (by multiple independent methods) amino acid frequencies in the ancestors of the oldest known proteins strongly correlate with the distribution of amino acids produced in abiotic chemical reactions, and predicted to result from them by chemical thermodynamics. As one would expect if life originated by a blind, unguided physical and chemical process (aka a "natural" abiogenesis) whereby the first proteins were synthesized by polymerization of the sorts of amino acids that existed in the prebiotic environment.

Higgs PG, Pudritz RE. A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code.
Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90. [DOI: 10.1089/ast.2008.0280]

Trifonov EN. Consensus temporal order of amino acids and evolution of the triplet code.
Gene. 2000 Dec 30;261(1):139-51. [PMID: 11164045]

Brooks DJ, Fresco JR, Lesk AM, Singh M. Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1645-55. [PMID: 12270892]

This is evidence for a natural physical/chemical origin of life, and evidence against intelligent design, because this is the kind of evidence you would rationally predict if life originated by a chemical and physical process. But if life originated by intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted. For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2017. Yet that is not what we see. The evidence points to an origin by a natural physical/chemical reaction.

So there you go. There is in fact evidence for abiogenesis. I have posted this before and explained this to you, and you simply moved the goalposts and started babbling about complexity. Stop moving the goalposts. I'm not claiming I have a TOTAL SOLUTION to abiogenesis. But there really actually is evidence for it, which is what you asked for. Deal with it.



Yes, but, yes, but, yes, but.... the articles are just full of fallacies and make-believe. They also condone vampirism and the murder of all people who work in the chocolate industry!

Yes, but, yes, but, yes, but.... the authors' surnames begin with H, T, and B, none of which are allowed in the rules of logic I've just made up.

Yes, but, yes, but, yes, but.... the articles have too many full-stops in. There should only be an average of 1 full stop per 15 words, and these articles have 1 full stop per 12 words.

Yes, but, yes, but, yes, but.... they don't cite any evidence of the kind I will now claim is necessary yet which has nothing to do with anything we've already discussed.

Yes, but, yes, but, yes, but.... I haven't even bothered to read them, so they don't actually exist.


Oh atheists! It's just one rule for you and one rule for everyone else, isn't it?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Visaki wrote:Then again not only we have absolutely zero evidence for supernatural (as opposed to natural) abiogenesis, we have zero evidence for anything supernatural. Furthermore the idea is not only unfalsifiable but also untestable. It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it's hardly what one could call a coherrent thought.



Which can thereby be summed up with just one word: faith

And herein lies the rub with LEROY: one faith position after another is 'supported' by yet another faith position. It's faith positions all the way down. As such, of course science isn't permissible where LEROY can't pervert, distort, or ignore it - because science doesn't allow faith positions.

Forget the battlegrounds of evolution or cosmology - the real conflict between Creationism and science underlies everything. Creationism is a system in which faith trumps everything else: thus hubristic ass-hats can never allow themselves to be shown wrong on anything ever, and they feel emotionally obliged to go and tussle with those who deny faith in the name of empirically based reason.

Thus we get the endless denial of evidence; first that it exists, then that it actually evidences what they don't want it to evidence. People like LEROY cannot allow knowledge to be and to guide the individual to truth, only approved knowledge that confirms the pre-existing biases can be countenanced.

Over and over, the Stolen Concept Fallacy is used by self-deluded egomaniacs who think they can literally overrule empirical evidence and the expertise of those who do actually bother to do the hard word.

Sadly, their real faith is in themselves, in their comprehension, in their capabilities - all such self-confidence is misplaced. They think they know what their religion says but they're misadvised, they think they know that their beliefs are right but they are misguided, and they think they know enough about science (of all fields of expertise, no less!) to simply assert their way through discussion of it, one asserted faith position after another, even though they're wholly miseducated, and the pits of shit they find themselves in by acting out their bizarre fantasies in public, the response they bring to having their absolute confidence challenged is misanthropic.

Why would LEROY repeatedly actively seek out people he routinely expresses disdain and dislike for, argue with them about topic he lacks any comprehension in, and repeatedly falsely gratify himself that he's doing well? It takes a dangerous ideology to pervert someone's well-being to such a degree that they are inclined towards such wasteful pursuits.

Here's where Pascal's Wager finally has some utility. What LEROY and his ideological bot-brethren need to understand is 'what if you're right?' What if there really is a god such as the one portrayed in the Bible? What if there really is a heaven and a hell, and God will sit and judge on the final day? What happens then when you've shown nothing but contempt throughout your life for other people? What if God forces you to remember all the times you sat there pretending you were right while actually knowing your ignorance, and still engaging in the deception? What if you were simply wrong about the numerous other faith positions you erected in defending your belief in God but which were actually false, and it turned out you'd been deceiving people allegedly in God's name?

If I'm wrong, and the Christian God exists - 'he' knows why I disbelieve in 'him' and that I am absolutely honest in my belief of my reasons. 'He' knows that I didn't spend my life harassing and fucking with other people in petty bullshit displays of ego on the internet. 'He' knows that my honestly held beliefs, although wrong, induced me to do good regardless, rather than holding the right beliefs for the wrong reasons and acting like a total fucking numpty to other people.

But more than anything else, what these numbnuts need to learn is that even if their god is real, and even if their god made the universe, then empirical knowledge of the universe cannot be the enemy, and evidence of processes like evolution and abiogenesis would be direct insights into the divinely designed building blocks of the universe - the way the designer designed the universe to work. As such, if they learned how to do their religion right, every single scientific advance would be welcomed and accepted as our species' only means of divining the divine - not rejected based on poorly reasoned, egotistical delusions. Why are all Creationists so spiritually shallow?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:10 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

I haven't read anything that was written after the post that I am quoting

Dragan Glas wrote:
Nature exists.

If you want to posit a designer that pre-dates Nature, you then have to explain the designer.

We only have one thing to explain - you have two.


in fact you have hundreds of things to explain I only have 1 thing to explain. (as I will show later in this post)

but it is still true that if you prove that X mechanism would create life from none life you would still have to explain the origin of mechanism x.

you have show that mechanism X exists and then explain where did X came from, in a similar way I have to show that a designer exists and then explain where did he come from.

so both have 2 things to explain

(this assuming that a single mechanism can solve the origin of life problem)


Dragan Glas wrote:We know how the Egyptians built the pyramids because we know how humans build things.


interesting, but irrelevant it is still true that you don't need to know who the designer is or where did he come from in order to conclude design..............agree?
Dragan Glas wrote:A supernatural designer is a different matter, as we have no evidence for one, and - therefore - no evidence of how a supernatural designer would "build" anything..


you don't have to infer supernatural design at this point, the claim is that life was designed by an intelligent designer, whether if this designer is supernatural or not can be left for further discussions.



It's the only relevant one as you can't explain a designer or how a designer works.


see above, we don't need to explain how the designer works in order to conclude design. in the same way you don't need to know how gravity works in order to conclude that apples fall from trees. agree? yes or no?


You keep tossing out this Boltzmann Brain idea - I, and others, have already explained that it doesn't save your designer idea.


again irrelevant, the BB idea is the simplest explanation, so if you are searching for the simplest explanation you are suppose to grant that you are a BB. That is my point. this paradox can be solved by simply admitting that simplicity is not the only nor even the most important criteria. So do you admit that simplicity is not the only nor even the most important criteria yes or no?


besides the design hypothesis is much more simpler than natural hypothesis.


the first thing that you have to note is that I oversimplified the "origin of life problem " the origin of life problem is not a single problem but rather a set of problems that includes dozens of entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems that would be solved by postulating the existence of a single designer.


besides there are other independent entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems, that have nothing to do with the origin of life and that would be solved by postulating an intelligent designer.


there are dozens, if not hundreds of independent problems that would be solved by a single designer, while naturalism would have to solve each problem independently...........so what is simpler a single designer or hundreds of unknown natural mechanisms

take for example cosmic inflation, we don't know what causes inflation, we don't know where the mechanism came from, there is no evidence that such a mechanism exists but most scientist believe in inflation simply because if true it would solve 3 independent problems. it is better to invoke inflation than to invoke 3 independent unknown mechanisms.

in the case of a designer, we don't know what caused the designer, nor where it came from, nor how he did his stuff, but it solves multiple independent problems it is better to invoke a designer, than invoking dozens of independent unknown mechanisms

furthermore, unlike inflation, we do have independent evidence for a designer, (kalam cosmological arguemtn, free will argument, moral argument, resurrection argument etc.)

and just to end with a bonus, entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems tend to increase as time passes, for example in the field of abiogenesis if you compare the problems that we have today vs the problems that we had last century you will note that today we have more problems, scientists have discovered more problems than solutions since the miller urey experiment.


so the reasons why I believe that design is a better explanation than naturalism are

1 a single designer would explain dozens of independent entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems that have no current solution

2 a single designer would also solve entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems that have nothing to do with abiogenesis

3 entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems increase as time passes, science tends to discover more of these problems rather than solving them

4 there is also independent evidence for a designer that has nothing to do with entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems



so let me ask you a question, please answer my question do not answer anything else.

if 1,2,3 and 4 where true, would you agree that design is a better explanation than nature? yes or no?

at this point you don't have to explain if you agree or disagree with 1 2 3 and 4 all you have to do is let us know, if these points where true, would you grant intelligent design as the best explanation.?

please do not quote from this question if you are not going to answer it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:17 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Has Leroy provided any evidence life was designed yet?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

MarsCydonia wrote:Has Leroy provided any evidence life was designed yet?


LEROY cannot play on equal terms, therefore assertion = evidence
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:06 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

MarsCydonia wrote:Has Leroy provided any evidence life was designed yet?

Nope. But he has agreed that life became from non life previously.

Now he's given up on his original statements and running behind the ID claims instead. Though I don't understand what he thinks he'll gain from them. What is interesting though is that all the "dozens of entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems" abiogenesis has according to Leroy also apply to the God hypothesis of abiogenesis and the Intelligent designer. But the solution is easy for him: Magic!
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:12 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Visaki wrote:Now he's given up on his original statements and running behind the ID claims instead. Though I don't understand what he thinks he'll gain from them. What is interesting though is that all the "dozens of entropy problems, fine tuning problems and chicken and egg problems" abiogenesis has according to Leroy also apply to the God hypothesis of abiogenesis and the Intelligent designer. But the solution is easy for him: Magic!



The Trickster God
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:30 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:


Yes. Again, I am glad we are over your molehill.


:)


:lol:

ok I made my point lets see if you have anything meaningful to offer,

he_who_is_nobody wrote:

Metabolism First and the Origin of Life. It is better than design, because there is evidence for it.


the Metabolism First hypothesis was falsified a few years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101433.htm
Researchers concluded that this fundamental limitation of "compound genomes" should lead to caution towards theories that set metabolism first as the origin as life


It is better than design, because there is evidence for it


it fact it isn't

a falsified hypothesis is worst than a hypothesis without evidence, so even if I grant that there is no evidence for design, your falsified hypothesis is worst than design. (you are raising the bar very low)


so do you admit that design hypothesis are better than metabolism first hypothesis ? at this point you don't have to admit that design is the best (or even a good) explanation all you have to do is admit that design is better than ]metabolism first hypothesis.


BTW
]metabolism first hypothesis where proposed as an attempt to solve some entropy problems (chirality problems for example) so by invoking this theory hypothesis, you are tacitly admitting that there are entropy problems that require a solution.
Wrong. The maid is substituted by the sun, because they are both putting energy into the system. I thought you said you understood entropy in this context?


you are exposing your ignorance, the sun is at best a necessary thing but not sufficient to create low entropy form low entropy. you need energy + some guiding mechanism

We are talking about things going from high entropy to low entropy naturally. You brought this up as if it were some insurmountable challenge that had no explanation, yet that is simply not the case. All one needs is energy coming in to over come it. Again, I thought you said you understood entropy in this context?



I am not saying that it is an insurmountable challenge, but it is a challenge that naturalistic hypothesis have to deal with. honest scientists admit that such a challenge exists, and they are trying to find solutions for them

atheist from this forum, pretend that such challenges don't exist.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:36 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 9 of 27
 [ 535 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests