Five Stages of Grief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(26-10-2015 10:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 12:06 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That would be another inaccurate statement.

You can keep making assumptions over and over again if you want but it's not going to lead you to any conclusions or worthwhile communication if it's all you do. Or you could stop that and take things for as they are and not conclude you know X & Y or simply what another person claims. Instead one can learn ways to uncover what a person thinks through this interesting method of communication.

(I guess in case you don't quite get it I should make it clear, there is no definitive stance of me and some others that one is 100% sure on such statements. I am in no way 100% sure life isn't implanted by intelligent designers)

Of COURSE you are, because we cannot infinitely regress with Earth life planted by aliens planted by aliens planted by... without either eventually coming to creation/ID or natural, random processes.

You can say you believe in space seed but don't tell me you think God created the seeders!

Apparently your mind only thinks one person concludes something 100% certainly, or they conclude something else certainly.. or if not that 2nd thing, a 3rd or 4th thing.

Well Q, it may be a shocking revelation to you to know the human mind is capable of being in states of uncertainty. Where it makes no claim of knowledge of a source.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(28-10-2015 08:05 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 12:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Of course there's such a thing as irreducible complexity.

No.

(20-10-2015 12:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You yourself have failed to explain how life "simply" formed via random processes--as have the scientists, believers or not, of this present day.

Both false, in the sense that we understand much more of it than you are willing to admit, and irrelevant, as this does not establish the existence of irreducible complexity.

(21-10-2015 12:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's not a declaration, it's a fact that with all our advanced knowledge of chemistry, we should be able to put the elements (literal) elements into play.

That does not follow. We understand physics, chemistry, and computation. We are not necessarily capable of building computers out of literally any substance, even though it is technically possible, and we have practical limitations on what characteristics the computers we do create have.

You do not seem to grasp the difference between theory and practice. Theory is easy. Practice, more often than not, is exceptionally hard - but this does not in any way invalidate the theory.

(21-10-2015 12:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Maybe here's a better way to look at it... we can use forensic tools to recreate a crime scene, or a mummy to a Pharoah, or fill in parts of a missing skeleton. We should be able to replicate the random factors that turned things FROM A LOWER STATE TO A MUCH, MUCH, MUCH HIGHER STATE OF ORDER, AGAINST ENTROPY.

"We can build planes to fly across the ocean. We should be able to put a colony on Alpha Centauri."

You also don't understand entropy or how it applies to Earth, as per usual for believers in intelligent design. The second law of thermodynamics that entropy must increase in total over a closed system.

Earth is not a closed system.

This is typical of atheists and skeptics, my friend--particularly that last. Yes, Earth has input from beyond like El Sol. Yes, it isn't in a closed system or closed universe. However, entropy and decay do not describe a theoretical closed system as much as they are inductively observed all around us. Put what you will into a beaker, any chemicals you like. Shake or stir, add vodka or gin, olive or lemon peel. It will not increase its order on the scale of millions to one to become anything alive.

I'm aware of current theory regarding things like basic blocks of life colliding and living in oily bubbles and then bursting to scatter and join. I'm all ears, however, if you'd care to explain in either citations or simple lay terms exactly how it is that the first unicellular life evolved simultaneously the abilities to feed, excrete, divide and reproduce.

Yes, you have the gaps. I have God. Lucky for us both. Rolleyes

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  This is typical of atheists and skeptics, my friend--particularly that last.

It is also common of anyone with a middle-school education in physics, as it is a painfully simple concept and central to thermodynamics as a field.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, Earth has input from beyond like El Sol. Yes, it isn't in a closed system or closed universe.

"Closed universe" nonsense aside, there is nothing more to say. Earth is not a closed system. Entropy does not have to increase so long as it receives energy from the sun. Your previous idiocy regarding evolution violating the second law of thermodynamics is therefore discarded.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, entropy and decay do not describe a theoretical closed system

Yes, they do.

You do not understand physics.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Put what you will into a beaker, any chemicals you like... It will not increase its order on the scale of millions to one to become anything alive.

You can assert this all you like. Assertion does not make it true.

You do not understand chemistry or biology.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm all ears, however, if you'd care to explain in either citations or simple lay terms exactly how it is that the first unicellular life evolved simultaneously the abilities to feed, excrete, divide and reproduce.

These capacities were not necessarily developed at the same time.

You do not understand evolution.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, you have the gaps. I have God. Lucky for us both. Rolleyes

You have a series of absolute failures to understand extremely simple principles combined with your preconceived biases towards a certain explanation. Taken together, these prevent you from understanding the exceptionally basic concepts that are actually being presented to you.

Life is nothing but chemistry. Literally all evidence that we have supports this conclusion. If you disagree, show why.

Chemicals behaves in certain specific ways regardless of whether or not an intelligent agency happened to put them in place. If certain chemicals are placed in certain conditions, certain reactions will always happen. Literally all evidence that we have supports this conclusion. If you disagree, show why.

Abiogenesis is not a revolutionary theory. It is the extremely straightforward and simple consequence of the above principles. If both of these things are true, abiogenesis is inevitable.

Try as you might, you have never been able to formulate a coherent response to this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
30-10-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(28-10-2015 09:44 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  This is typical of atheists and skeptics, my friend--particularly that last.

It is also common of anyone with a middle-school education in physics, as it is a painfully simple concept and central to thermodynamics as a field.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, Earth has input from beyond like El Sol. Yes, it isn't in a closed system or closed universe.

"Closed universe" nonsense aside, there is nothing more to say. Earth is not a closed system. Entropy does not have to increase so long as it receives energy from the sun. Your previous idiocy regarding evolution violating the second law of thermodynamics is therefore discarded.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, entropy and decay do not describe a theoretical closed system

Yes, they do.

You do not understand physics.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Put what you will into a beaker, any chemicals you like... It will not increase its order on the scale of millions to one to become anything alive.

You can assert this all you like. Assertion does not make it true.

You do not understand chemistry or biology.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm all ears, however, if you'd care to explain in either citations or simple lay terms exactly how it is that the first unicellular life evolved simultaneously the abilities to feed, excrete, divide and reproduce.

These capacities were not necessarily developed at the same time.

You do not understand evolution.

(28-10-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, you have the gaps. I have God. Lucky for us both. Rolleyes

You have a series of absolute failures to understand extremely simple principles combined with your preconceived biases towards a certain explanation. Taken together, these prevent you from understanding the exceptionally basic concepts that are actually being presented to you.

Life is nothing but chemistry. Literally all evidence that we have supports this conclusion. If you disagree, show why.

Chemicals behaves in certain specific ways regardless of whether or not an intelligent agency happened to put them in place. If certain chemicals are placed in certain conditions, certain reactions will always happen. Literally all evidence that we have supports this conclusion. If you disagree, show why.

Abiogenesis is not a revolutionary theory. It is the extremely straightforward and simple consequence of the above principles. If both of these things are true, abiogenesis is inevitable.

Try as you might, you have never been able to formulate a coherent response to this.

You cheated. You butchered my paragraphs to pull things from context. YES, entropy et al DOES describe the capabilities of a closed system but the laws I'm referring to have ALWAYS been inductively observed even in open systems. Man observed that everything decays before it was applied as a theoretical concept. THAT was my point. I wonder if you knew that before you started in again on me.

Things tend toward entropy at the level required to turn goo in the sea to life. That's all there is to say.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: