A
Aloysium
Guest
I don’t understand how this applies to Ed’s post, but it most definitely describes a belief that atoms simply doing what they do can result in this:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for succinctly summarising the ID position: “It sure looks complex to me.”I don’t understand how this applies to Ed’s post, but it most definitely describes a belief that atoms simply doing what they do can result in this:
Personal disbelief will not get you very far in science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you ready then to dump Dawkins?“It sure looks complex to me.”
A
Aloysium
Guest
The complexity arises in the whole being greater than the parts. All the stuff presented in the video, and more, is behind the very perceptions, feelings and concepts we are here in this moment experiencing. Within the simplicity of one person relating to the world is a myriad of physical processes, organized in accordance with the spirit that defines mankind as a life form, yet separate from others.
Perhaps it is in the beauty and wonder that most of us begin to know God.
Actually, it is the hallmark of science to be skeptical, to question and go beyond what is taught in classrooms dedicated to unthinking rote responses. We’d still be talking about phlogiston otherwise.
Perhaps it is in the beauty and wonder that most of us begin to know God.
Actually, it is the hallmark of science to be skeptical, to question and go beyond what is taught in classrooms dedicated to unthinking rote responses. We’d still be talking about phlogiston otherwise.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Agreed. Various emergent properties appear to make life more complex than it actually it. Hence the ID side’s misunderstanding of what it is possible for evolution to do.The complexity arises in the whole being greater than the parts.
R
rossum
Guest
Professor Dawkins does not have a personal disbelief in either science or evolution. Why would I want to “dump” him?Are you ready then to dump Dawkins?
E
edwest211
Guest
This is not possible. Scientists know this. That is why Bioinformatics was developed. The only way they can understand the workings of a complex machine is to take it apart.
B
buffalo
Guest
Baloney. NS and RM are no longer tenable as to these possibilities. You well know it now, but still hanging on.Agreed. Various emergent properties appear to make life more complex than it actually it. Hence the ID side’s misunderstanding of what it is possible for evolution to do.
R
rossum
Guest
Your unsupported personal opinion is irrelevant to science I’m afraid.Baloney. NS and RM are no longer tenable as to these possibilities.
Some advice: do not go on stage or screen with a mind reading act. You will not go down well.You well know it now, but still hanging on.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Remarks a being with an intellect, or is it merely the appearance of a complex nature beyond the simple interactions that govern the material world, and the comment is purely meaningless jibberish emerging from whatwould be the true reality - matter.Various emergent properties appear to make life more complex than it actually it.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Thereby rendering human beings, animals, plants and bacteria, lifeless collections of atoms.The only way they can understand the workings of a complex machine is to take it apart.
R
rossum
Guest
An emergent property is a property which is found in the assembly of parts, but not in any individual part. None of the individual parts of an automobile have the property of mobility, yet the assembly of those immobile parts has that property.Remarks a being with an intellect, or is it merely the appearance of a complex nature beyond the simple interactions that govern the material world,
E
edwest211
Guest
You are oversimplifying. Scientists know they don’t know. Take molecular switches. They work and then shut off. If one does not shut off then disease might occur.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I suppose in one way, it is oversimplifying, but in another it is a reduction of life to the level of the molecular that is the oversimplification. The switches are part of a harmonious integrated system, that is the body. But the body, as a whole operates on an entirely different set of relations, the overall physical form of the organism, participating within an environment that recognizes it as such. Natural selection, would be one way to understand that relationship. Although earthly life is material, it rests on interactions that are very different from those of atoms. An example of this would be the perception and attraction to a female of the species and an angry reaction to a male competitor. Somehow, we are asked to believe, that not only did atoms arrange themselves into such complex forms that include molecular switches as one of a myriad of components, but that the psychology that somehow is said to emanate from matter, did so as well. Go figure.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
The thing is that we are talking of beings that have a psychological and spiritual dimension. The psychological representing relationships involving the perceptions and understandings of, as well as the emotional and behavioural reactions of a particular creature to elements of its environment; spiritual in that we do not exist within one universal cosmic soup of existence, but as individual beings, having a particular structure that defines the kind of thing that we are, the soul as we historically have described this reality. We as human beings are persons, in contrast with other creatures, which simply act instinctively. Our personhood is as real as our physical existence, and in fact, since it is eternal in nature, transcends it. It does not eminate from the matter that is our body, but is the organizing principle, rooted in an eternal Now, that makes us a unity of being.An emergent property is a property which is found in the assembly of parts, but not in any individual part. None of the individual parts of an automobile have the property of mobility, yet the assembly of those immobile parts has that property.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Abiogenesis (the subject of this thread) is part of science, and science deals with the material and the molecular. Science does not deal with souls, gods, atman etc.I suppose in one way, it is oversimplifying, but in another it is a reduction of life to the level of the molecular that is the oversimplification.
You are expecting science to cover things that are outwith the boundary of science.
Psychology is within science; spirituality is not. Can you use science to prove, or disprove, the existence of kinnaras?The thing is that we are talking of beings that have a psychological and spiritual dimension.
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
Scientific principles follow a hierarchy.
Scientific LAW
Scientific THEORY
Scientific HYPOTHESIS
A theory cannot contradict a LAW, or the theory must be discarded. A hypothesis cannot contradict standing THEORY or LAW or it must be discarded.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy (randomness) of any isolated system always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system. More simply put:
disorder in the known universe (the ultimate isolated system) only increases and never decreases.
A simple way to think of the second law of thermodynamics is that a room, if not cleaned and tidied, will invariably become more messy and disorderly with time – regardless of how careful one is to keep it clean. When the room is cleaned, its entropy decreases, but the effort to clean it has resulted in an increase in entropy outside the room that exceeds the entropy lost. Note that “cleaning the room” requires an active CLEANER who is (name removed by moderator)utting time, thought, resources and energy into the room.
In other words, our universe is a “downhill system” where things want to deteriorate and go toward increasing DISORDER.
Both the THEORY of evolution and HYPOTHESIS of abiogenesis contradict the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS and should be rejected out-of-hand on that basis alone. Biologic systems in our known universe DO NOT accidentally run uphill over millions and millions of years until YOU (a sentient, individual, human being) are the ACCIDENTAL product! This is thermodynamic hogwash!
By analogy, if you place a group of computer components in a locked garage and return 100 or 1,000 years later, will you find a computer up and running? Of course not! If the garage is still standing and you manage to knock the rusted lock open, you will find a group of rusted, useless, deteriorated computer parts.
The creation of man, in the image and likeness of God, required His creative act…which is still ongoing! Which is better for mental health? To be CREATED out of love by your CREATOR…or to be a thermodynamically impossible accident that took trillions of years to “just happen?” This worldview holds true for all God’s lovely creation from elephants to Birds of Paradise.
I received a Biology Degree with Honors, very nearly earned a Chemistry Degree, and had extensive Postgraduate education in the Sciences. Especially in undergraduate school Darwin’s theory and the hypothesis of abiogenesis were “pushed” by “science” academics, and faithfully regurgitated by me on tests to earn top grades. Fortunately, I never believed them.
Why are theories and hypotheses contradictory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics so pushed in Academia? Because people want to escape the authority of a supreme creator-God. The want to be their own god and author their own morality. They want to keep their sins.
Scientific LAW
Scientific THEORY
Scientific HYPOTHESIS
A theory cannot contradict a LAW, or the theory must be discarded. A hypothesis cannot contradict standing THEORY or LAW or it must be discarded.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy (randomness) of any isolated system always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system. More simply put:
disorder in the known universe (the ultimate isolated system) only increases and never decreases.
A simple way to think of the second law of thermodynamics is that a room, if not cleaned and tidied, will invariably become more messy and disorderly with time – regardless of how careful one is to keep it clean. When the room is cleaned, its entropy decreases, but the effort to clean it has resulted in an increase in entropy outside the room that exceeds the entropy lost. Note that “cleaning the room” requires an active CLEANER who is (name removed by moderator)utting time, thought, resources and energy into the room.
In other words, our universe is a “downhill system” where things want to deteriorate and go toward increasing DISORDER.
Both the THEORY of evolution and HYPOTHESIS of abiogenesis contradict the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS and should be rejected out-of-hand on that basis alone. Biologic systems in our known universe DO NOT accidentally run uphill over millions and millions of years until YOU (a sentient, individual, human being) are the ACCIDENTAL product! This is thermodynamic hogwash!
By analogy, if you place a group of computer components in a locked garage and return 100 or 1,000 years later, will you find a computer up and running? Of course not! If the garage is still standing and you manage to knock the rusted lock open, you will find a group of rusted, useless, deteriorated computer parts.
The creation of man, in the image and likeness of God, required His creative act…which is still ongoing! Which is better for mental health? To be CREATED out of love by your CREATOR…or to be a thermodynamically impossible accident that took trillions of years to “just happen?” This worldview holds true for all God’s lovely creation from elephants to Birds of Paradise.
I received a Biology Degree with Honors, very nearly earned a Chemistry Degree, and had extensive Postgraduate education in the Sciences. Especially in undergraduate school Darwin’s theory and the hypothesis of abiogenesis were “pushed” by “science” academics, and faithfully regurgitated by me on tests to earn top grades. Fortunately, I never believed them.
Why are theories and hypotheses contradictory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics so pushed in Academia? Because people want to escape the authority of a supreme creator-God. The want to be their own god and author their own morality. They want to keep their sins.
R
rossum
Guest
Averaged over the entire universe, yes. However, parts of the universe can decrease entropy/disorder, for example the interior of your refrigerator which is cooler than thermal equilibrium would normally dictate. That decrease in entropy is compensated for by the increase in entropy due to the power station supplying the electricity to run your refrigerator.In other words, our universe is a “downhill system” where things want to deteriorate and go toward increasing DISORDER.
That averaging over the entire universe allows for a lot of local variation. Have you calculated the increase in entropy due to an average star? Any smaller decrease in entropy on earth will be compensated for by the increase due to that star.
There is a classic creationist post on this subject:
“One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.”
Source: here
Yes there is such a source. Yes, scientists know about it.
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
The Theory of Evolution, explaining the origin of life, is simply thermodynamic nonsense with ACCIDENTAL, FORTUITOUS, DIRECTIONALITY from the trivial toward the unimaginably complex over tremendous spans of time (billions of fortuitous HAPPENSTANCES). This is something like a ping-pong ball ACCIDENTALLY ascending Mount Everest…given enough time.
It’s not going to happen in this world or the known universe. Might happen in some fairy tale universe, yet undiscovered, but that is not science. That would be a fairy tale. Evolution is “pseudo-directionality based on caprice” (a non-directional phenomenon). Such “pseudo-directionality based on caprice” is an inherent oxymoron.
I am pleased that your post exhibits some very meritorious knowledge of science, but leaves me confused about your conclusion about evolution explaining the origin of life. Evolution argues WRONGLY (not just “differently”) against Scientific Law. Those Laws are not merely accepted everywhere (like voting), they haven been proven in innumerable scientific observations and are the FOUNDATION of science.
Can’t imagine what your “giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy” is, but ENERGY, alone, is not enough. DIRECTION (not happenstance), INTELLIGENCE, and possibly DESIGN would also be required. Theologians simply call the “giant outside source” with all of these attributes" GOD. Theologians are “lumpers” in a word of the divine attributes…not splitters.
I am a scientist, and I am very curious to know exactly what source of ENERGY, and what type of ENERGY you refer to, that enables evolution to fly in the face of Thermodynamic Law.
It’s not going to happen in this world or the known universe. Might happen in some fairy tale universe, yet undiscovered, but that is not science. That would be a fairy tale. Evolution is “pseudo-directionality based on caprice” (a non-directional phenomenon). Such “pseudo-directionality based on caprice” is an inherent oxymoron.
I am pleased that your post exhibits some very meritorious knowledge of science, but leaves me confused about your conclusion about evolution explaining the origin of life. Evolution argues WRONGLY (not just “differently”) against Scientific Law. Those Laws are not merely accepted everywhere (like voting), they haven been proven in innumerable scientific observations and are the FOUNDATION of science.
Can’t imagine what your “giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy” is, but ENERGY, alone, is not enough. DIRECTION (not happenstance), INTELLIGENCE, and possibly DESIGN would also be required. Theologians simply call the “giant outside source” with all of these attributes" GOD. Theologians are “lumpers” in a word of the divine attributes…not splitters.
I am a scientist, and I am very curious to know exactly what source of ENERGY, and what type of ENERGY you refer to, that enables evolution to fly in the face of Thermodynamic Law.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m going to take a wild guess…the sun.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.