How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 09:29 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Assertions I've made that none of you have yet refuted:

4. Natural laws regarding the tendency of things toward entropy and the tendency of collisions to produce either disorder (or particles and isotopes at more fundamental levels that are exceptionally short-lived) are just some of the factors that make what is being assumed highly, exceptionally, cosmically unlikely.

Wow. Just... wow.

Everything in even an Introduction to Chemistry 101 course is about how the exact opposite is true. Given condition X, Y will occur, every time. This is the most basic part of the Atomic and Kinetics Theories.

When energy is added to a local system, entropy can decrease locally while it increases overall. The sun shines on the earth and provides the energy that drives most of life; the earth's chemistry produces sulfuric chemicals that provide energy for life where there is no sun.

Chemicals attach to one another naturally; in particular, hydrocarbons form in so many varieties that it has its own branch of chemistry (organic chem), and we can observe these reactions occurring whenever we assemble in the lab even the most basic (no pun intended) level of simulation and add energy in the form of electricity (lightning). To even assert that there is a "tendency of things toward entropy and the tendency of collisions to produce either disorder" in the context of biochemistry is so dishonest, it takes my breath away.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-08-2015, 09:31 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Assertions I've made that none of you have yet refuted:

1. This is speculative in nature; scientists have been utterly unable to produce life in a laboratory environment.

You may want to look up the Miller-Urey experiment and its results.

That aside, again, this is nothing but the god-of-the-gaps argument, which is fallacious at its root. We haven't put a human being on Mars yet, either. Would you argue that reaching Mars is therefore impossible?

(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. More than just a handful of scientists have been on the job.

Ditto the Mars.

(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. If scientists are successful in this endeavor, they have created life via intelligent design and it would remain to demonstrate how such might be done more randomly in less controlled conditions than a laboratory (Earth in a primal environment).

You really don't understand how this works, do you?

(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  4. Natural laws regarding the tendency of things toward entropy

...only hold for closed systems.

Earth is not a closed system. The giant ball of fire in the sky kind of negates that argument.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
20-08-2015, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2015 09:50 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Assertions I've made that none of you have yet refuted:

1. This is speculative in nature; scientists have been utterly unable to produce life in a laboratory environment.

We did not "refute" this, nor do we need to do so-- it is hardly surprising, given the mathematical complexity of the reactions you so gleefully point to, we have been unable to reproduce in a flask what took the early earth nearly 500,000,000 years and millions of square miles to accomplish. That we have even taken steps in this direction, that we have proven mathematically how any of it works, less than a century after serious analytical chemistry techniques were developed, is amazing. To suggest that only this accomplishment (which you note in #3 would not actually prove that life emerged by this particular route, only that we can produce life artificially, unless we can show mathematically that the method we discovered is the only way it can be done... otherwise, it may be the case that nature took another, equally-viable, method) can substantiate evolutionary biology is absurd on its face. Abiogenesis chemistry is fascinating, but it is not required for a solid understanding of how life functioned after it emerged, and barring some of the events that occurred too far back in the record to find (unreplaced by better mechanisms) in modern life, we have a pretty damned good grasp on that.

(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. More than just a handful of scientists have been on the job.

Aren't we the ones telling you this? As I noted elsewhere, the fact that biochemists of all stripes (Christian, atheist, and Other) are building entire bodies of research on the subject, and none of them are saying "it did not happen", should be a clue to those of you who think it cannot have happened.

(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. If scientists are successful in this endeavor, they have created life via intelligent design and it would remain to demonstrate how such might be done more randomly in less controlled conditions than a laboratory (Earth in a primal environment).

Well said. So why is it a big issue for you that scientists have been unable to do this in a lab? You can't state the irrelevance of abiogenesis chemistry as it applies to our knowledge of the evolution of life on earth after its formation, then turn around and say it's the main thing that science needs to prove!

NASA does its research into abiogenesis chemistry because it is relevant to finding life elsewhere: we need to know the ways in which life can evolve in order to have better targets for exploration of the solar system to look for non-terrestrial organisms. And we look into the historical pathways of the formation of modern cellular chemistry because it is worth knowing how life got to this point, and to track the paths it took, as much as we are able. But again, these are only indirectly related to evolution, and it is dishonest to hold them up as "problems for" evolution, as the ID/IC crowd like to say.

Edit to Add: Your "created by intelligent design" comment in #3 is a little bit misleading. I know that you meant they "did it artificially", but because the scientists are only recreating natural conditions on a small scale, not pushing the chemicals together physically, the analogy does not hold to the actual term "intelligent design". I said "well said" because you succinctly state the problem with "even if we do it in a lab, it does not automatically mean we've successfully recreated the same conditions that caused it to happen on the early earth, only that we have created one condition by which it can happen".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
20-08-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(20-08-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Assertions I've made that none of you have yet refuted:

1. This is speculative in nature; scientists have been utterly unable to produce life in a laboratory environment.

"Scientists can't do it, therefore nature can't do it," is a complete non-sequitur.

Quote:2. More than just a handful of scientists have been on the job.

... What is here that needs refutation?

Quote:3. If scientists are successful in this endeavor, they have created life via intelligent design and it would remain to demonstrate how such might be done more randomly in less controlled conditions than a laboratory (Earth in a primal environment).

If you know you're going to use that argument even if we were to refute your first point by showing you scientists creating life in the lab, then why even present the first point as something we need to refute?

Quote:4. Natural laws regarding the tendency of things toward entropy and the tendency of collisions to produce either disorder (or particles and isotopes at more fundamental levels that are exceptionally short-lived) are just some of the factors that make what is being assumed highly, exceptionally, cosmically unlikely.

I don't think you actually know what entropy is, if you think life is not a sufficient contributor to it. Have you seen life, before you call it something that can't be a product of disorder?

Besides which, short term local decreases in entropy are not relevant to the overall increase in entropy that the specific laws of physics you're referring to describe. Please at least attempt to understand the topics you speak on before you reduce them to ready made, oft refuted creationist talking points. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: