Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[Sparhafoc]

And because talking with Creationists necessitates teaching old dogs new tricks by repetition.... I will post this again for LEROY to ignore.

To demystify the willful descent into absurdity, Biologists and philosophers of science employ a much more rigorous standard for evaluating the potential characteristics of a given entity.

The most common reductionist gradation is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_organisation

Atoms
Molecules
Cells
Tissues
Organs
Organisms**
Populations
Communities
Ecosystems
Biosphere


**Organisms are considered living systems, in that they satisfy all the descriptions of life, rather than only satisfying some of them.

As such, Biologically speaking, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organs are components of life, but are not themselves alive. Instead, it is an organism possessing these things in an organized manner that allows us to define it as 'alive'.

Atoms are not alive. Atoms together make molecules. Molecules are not alive. Molecules make proteins which in turn make the components of an organism. It is the organism which is alive, not the atoms, not the molecules, so your argument is based on anti-scientific bullshit, and yet you think you get to declare what's scientifically appropriate or acceptable.

Pro-tip - you assuredly don't, at least not here. If you want to declare inanities to people on the internet, then best get yourself a blog, because here your bullshit gets no traction whatsoever.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Errr no. You are wrong and garbled in every instance.

Life is not some magical thing as per your argument would require.

It is how certain types of molecules behave in a specific circumstance.

Life is a behavior of those molecules, not a distinct quantity that exists independently of those molecules. Show me wrong by pointing to a single thing in the universe which is alive without molecules.

Finally, laws are DESCRIPTIONS not PRESCRIPTIONS.

The fact that you argue contrarily to this shows how little you comprehend.

The fact that you have been educated about this a dozen times in the past and still continue to make this mistake is why Creationism is an intellectual recidivism.

That's because Leroy never think these things through (you can figure out why). We, the people that aren't Bernard, don't affirm "Life only comes from life" is an inviolable scientific law, Bernard did.

As I explained, if it an unviolable scientific law, you need to either
1. Discard science (thus being unable to use science to support this so-called "scientific law")
Or
2. Or admit that this "scientific law" can be violated (otherwise you disprove god).

Leroy admitted that this exactly right: it isn't an inviolable scientific law. He just believes that it is inviolable except for the time god does violate it.
So Leroy's evidence that it is indeed a law only violable by god is: nothing.

Like Craig's "nothing (1')".

 

[Deleted member 619]

Science law.... life comes from life

Oh, look. The Pasteur canard.

Pasteur's 'law of biogenesis' was formulated specifically to address the arisal of fully formed organisms from non-living matter, owing to the fact that it was popularly thought that maggots, for example, grew from dead meat.

Modern chemical abiogenesis bears about as much resemblance to this notion as the post I'm quoting bears to thought, scientific or otherwise.

It should also be noted that physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. There's a long history of physical laws being violated. Newton's law of universal gravity, for instance, stood for about 250 years, despite being wrong.

 

[leroy]

Oh, look. The Pasteur canard.

Pasteur's 'law of biogenesis' was formulated specifically to address the arisal of fully formed organisms from non-living matter, owing to the fact that it was popularly thought that maggots, for example, grew from dead meat.

the law applies to all known living things, if you what to claim organisms form 4.5B years where inmune to this law, you are the one who has to provide justification

It should also be noted that physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. There's a long history of physical laws being violated. Newton's law of universal gravity, for instance, stood for about 250 years, despite being wrong.

yes but Newtons Laws where granted as true until proven wrong, Einstein (or someone else) carried his own burden proof and proved with evidence that Newton was wrong.

Can you imagine Einstein saying "Newton is wrong because I personally don't like the implications of his laws" would anyone take his claims seriously?

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Miracles are suppose to disobey scientific laws, the point is that the only way to have life from none life is if you disobey a natural law (miracle), if you grant this law, it would imply that life had a miraculous origin.

if you don't grant this law, then you have a to carry heavy burden proof and explain why things where different 4.5B years ago.....

Errr no. You are wrong and garbled in every instance.

Life is not some magical thing as per your argument would require.

It is how certain types of molecules behave in a specific circumstance.

Life is a behavior of those molecules, not a distinct quantity that exists independently of those molecules. Show me wrong by pointing to a single thing in the universe which is alive without molecules.

Finally, laws are DESCRIPTIONS not PRESCRIPTIONS.

The fact that you argue contrarily to this shows how little you comprehend.

The fact that you have been educated about this a dozen times in the past and still continue to make this mistake is why Creationism is an intellectual recidivism.

that is stupid, ink is also made of atoms, but it is still a fact (supported by scientific laws) that books with meaning full sentences can not come in to exístanse naturally.

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Leroy admitted that this exactly right: it isn't an inviolable scientific law. He just believes that it is inviolable except for the time god does violate it.
So Leroy's evidence that it is indeed a law only violable by god is: nothing.

Like Craig's "nothing (1')".

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So does the idea of life coming from none life violates a scientific law? (yes or no)

If Yes, then we both agree and we can move on and discuss the implications

If No, then you have a to carry a heavy burden proof

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

wow the fact that you repeated that stupid comment in this new thread indicates that you honestly think that you are making a good point.

Miracles are suppose to disobey scientific laws, the point is that the only way to have life from none life is if you disobey a natural law (miracle), if you grant this law, it would imply that life had a miraculous origin.

if you don't grant this law, then you have a to carry heavy burden proof and explain why things where different 4.5B years ago.....

Wow, Leroy just admitted that this "scientific law" is violable.

So Bernard, see, Leroy is a christian and just admitted that life can come from non-life (he's just too stupid to realize it).

Of course laws are violable under a theistic point of view, theism predicts that laws have to be violated every onece in a while.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[My comment wasn't moved so I'll point this out here again:
If "life comes from life" is an unviolable scientific law then:
1. This disproves god created life.
or
2. Science is discarded and irrelevant for this "scientific law".

It's a loss-loss scenario for those who spout it. Congratulations.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

wow the fact that you repeated that stupid comment in this new thread indicates that you honestly think that you are making a good point.


Miracles are suppose to disobey scientific laws, the point is that the only way to have life from none life is if you disobey a natural law (miracle), if you grant this law, it would imply that life had a miraculous origin.

if you don't grant this law, then you have a to carry heavy burden proof and explain why things where different 4.5B years ago.....

:lol:

As I predicted. Magic! Thanks for admitting that all you have is an argument from personal incredulity. How pathetic.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

that is stupid, ink is also made of atoms, but it is still a fact (supported by scientific laws) that books with meaning full sentences can not come in to exístanse naturally.

And what has that got to do with the price of fish?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So does the idea of life coming from none life violates a scientific law? (yes or no)

If Yes, then we both agree and we can move on and discuss the implications

If No, then you have a to carry a heavy burden proof

No, of course not.

And you and your shifting the burden of proof.

Again, and listen for fuck's sakes.

Laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE.

This means that laws say what we see, not say what can be.

Laws are descriptions of the relationship between quantities under specific conditions.

Under the conditions of the planet today, biogenesis is all we see.

But this makes no claim for all eternity as you mistakenly assume.


So there is no burden of proof based on this wibbling notion that some scientific law is being violated, not least because we wouldn't give two hoots if a scientific law was being violated under completely different conditions.

What there is a burden of proof for is the contention that life originated from non-living matter. Over the last century, scientists have worked to evidence that.

Examples:

http://www.cell.com/trends/biochemical-sciences/fulltext/S0968-0004(98)01300-0?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/395.full.pdf


So here's the crux LEROY, and listen carefully.

We know life must have come to planet Earth in some way because there was a long geological period where no life existed.

There are, for want of a better term, competing hypotheses in this regard.

There are the tens of thousands of religious beliefs made by humans over the centuries, positing various gods, spirits, and proto-humans creating life on the planet.

Then there are various scientific notions positing a range of ways that life came to this planet.

None of the religious beliefs are supported by evidence. Each and every one of them is drawn from some ancient historical and cultural notion constructed by people who were ignorant about essentially everything empirical and so projected what little they knew onto the cosmos.

Many of the scientific notions have turned out to be wrong, but there are some which have continued to accrue evidence over the last 50 years.

One of these is chemical abiogenesis. This is where, under the different conditions of an early Earth, a group of molecules was, due to its configuration and its environment, able to imperfectly self-reproduce. This self-reproduction is where evolution by natural selection began, because all evolution needs is 3 ingredients: heritability, variation, and differential survival.

So you should be asking for evidence for chemical abiogenesis.

And have a little humility for fuck's sakes, we all know there's no fucking empirical evidence for your magical God claim, so stop doing the typical Creationist bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

LEROY - I cited this article to you before, and you clearly didn't read it.

Why don't you read anything people link for your education?

You have a fundamental misapprehension of the term 'law' in science. It is nothing like the word law you use in non-scientific parlance. Nothing like it at all. As such, the notion you keep expressing of laws not being violated is absolute horseshit and underscores how you know nothing about science or scientific method.

You can continue to be not even wrong, or you can learn - your call.


https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon.

...

Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work...

...

The difference between scientific laws and scientific facts is a bit harder to define, though the definition is important. Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true. Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world.

...

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.

...

The use of the word "law" by laymen and scientists differ. When most people talk about a law, they mean something that is absolute. A scientific law is much more flexible. It can have exceptions, be proven wrong or evolve over time,

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Of course laws are violable under a theistic point of view, theism predicts that laws have to be violated every onece in a while.

Idiocy.

Laws are not violable/inviolable in a scientific perspective - you misunderstand what you are talking about.

Again, and without fluff so you can concentrate:

Scientific laws are descriptions about the relationship between 2 quantities in a specific circumstance.


As such, the notion you and Bernie are forwarding is just scientifically illiterate - it means neither of you have a fucking clue what you are wittering about. Clearly neither of you took science at any point during your educational history, so both of you need to shut up, stop pretending you can blag your way through this, and listen to people who are vastly advanced to you with respect to scientific knowledge.

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So does the idea of life coming from none life violates a scientific law? (yes or no)

If Yes, then we both agree and we can move on and discuss the implications

If No, then you have a to carry a heavy burden proof

No, of course not.

And you and your shifting the burden of proof.

Again, and listen for fuck's sakes.

Laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE.

This means that laws say what we see, not say what can be.

Laws are descriptions of the relationship between quantities under specific conditions.

Under the conditions of the planet today, biogenesis is all we see.

But this makes no claim for all eternity as you mistakenly assume.


So there is no burden of proof based on this wibbling notion that some scientific law is being violated, not least because we wouldn't give two hoots if a scientific law was being violated under completely different conditions.

What there is a burden of proof for is the contention that life originated from non-living matter. Over the last century, scientists have worked to evidence that.

Examples:

http://www.cell.com/trends/biochemical-sciences/fulltext/S0968-0004(98)01300-0?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/395.full.pdf


So here's the crux LEROY, and listen carefully.

We know life must have come to planet Earth in some way because there was a long geological period where no life existed.

There are, for want of a better term, competing hypotheses in this regard.

There are the tens of thousands of religious beliefs made by humans over the centuries, positing various gods, spirits, and proto-humans creating life on the planet.

Then there are various scientific notions positing a range of ways that life came to this planet.

None of the religious beliefs are supported by evidence. Each and every one of them is drawn from some ancient historical and cultural notion constructed by people who were ignorant about essentially everything empirical and so projected what little they knew onto the cosmos.

Many of the scientific notions have turned out to be wrong, but there are some which have continued to accrue evidence over the last 50 years.

One of these is chemical abiogenesis. This is where, under the different conditions of an early Earth, a group of molecules was, due to its configuration and its environment, able to imperfectly self-reproduce. This self-reproduction is where evolution by natural selection began, because all evolution needs is 3 ingredients: heritability, variation, and differential survival.

So you should be asking for evidence for chemical abiogenesis.

And have a little humility for fuck's sakes, we all know there's no fucking empirical evidence for your magical God claim, so stop doing the typical Creationist bullshit.

it seems to me that you are saying Laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE....therefore I can ignore a law if the law contradicts my own personal world view.


again if you what to affirm that life came from none life naturally in the past, you have to present your evidence,


I already provided evidence as for why design is a better explanation than "nature" with respect to the origin of life.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

it seems to me that you are saying Laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE....

What on Earth gave you that idea?

Would it be the part where I wrote:

Laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE.

therefore I can ignore a law if the law contradicts my own personal world view.

And where do you get that from? It's clearly a non-sequitur. Laws are descriptive not prescriptive, therefore icecream is chubby.

We're not talking about 'world views' LEROY - whatever that wibble's supposed to mean - we're talking about what the term 'law' means in science.

again if you what to affirm that life came from none life naturally in the past, you have to present your evidence,

What do you mean 'again'?

You're replying to a post in which I told you to ask for evidence instead of wibbling incoherently about 'violating scientific laws'.

So you should be asking for evidence for chemical abiogenesis.

See?

I already provided evidence as for why design is a better explanation than "nature" with respect to the origin of life.

Oh you did?

Where did you do that?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Now, as for evidence, we have to go back to the shell game.

This thread had to be split off of a discussion thread based on studies in chemical abiogenesis because LEROY couldn't stay on topic.

As such, some of the evidence was presented in that very thread this one was split from.

So shall we play the Shell Game boys and girls?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=177121#p177121

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500179
The ribosome as a missing link in the evolution of life


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953650
The ribosome as a missing link in prebiotic evolution II: Ribosomes encode ribosomal proteins that bind to common regions of their own mRNAs and rRNAs.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088142
Functional Class I and II Amino Acid-activating Enzymes Can Be Coded by Opposite Strands of the Same Gene.


And there's evidence.

Are you going to address that evidence, LEROY?

Or are you going to try to obfuscate for 4 or 5 pages, then pretend that no one cited that evidence, LEROY?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So does the idea of life coming from none life violates a scientific law? (yes or no)

If Yes, then we both agree and we can move on and discuss the implications

If No, then you have a to carry a heavy burden proof

:facepalm:
Leroy must have missed where someone kept repeating "Life only comes from life... Think about it" as a mantra. That someone was his fellow slavery apologists Bernhard.

On my end, there is no "Life only comes from life" law because the fact is, once there was no life and now there is so there was no law to prevent this, it happened.

As such, there was nothing to be violated either by god or by nature.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Leroy admitted that this exactly right: it isn't an inviolable scientific law. He just believes that it is inviolable except for the time god does violate it.
So Leroy's evidence that it is indeed a law only violable by god is: nothing.

Like Craig's "nothing (1')".

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So does the idea of life coming from none life violates a scientific law? (yes or no)

If Yes, then we both agree and we can move on and discuss the implications

If No, then you have a to carry a heavy burden proof

No, and I've already explained why, by elucidating the origin, scope and domain of the law of biogenesis. The law you think it breaks simply doesn't apply to modern chemical abiogenesis. Not its business.

Moreover, as I and others keep telling you, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative.

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't Raliegh Marsden.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I already provided evidence as for why design is a better explanation than "nature" with respect to the origin of life.

Can anyone see where LEROY did this?

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[No, and I've already explained why, by elucidating the origin, scope and domain of the law of biogenesis. The law you think it breaks simply doesn't apply to modern chemical abiogenesis. Not its business.

Moreover, as I and others keep telling you, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative.

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't Raliegh Marsden.

again, the law applies to all known living things. if you what to argue that life in the past was inmune to this law, feel free to provide your evidence.

the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative.

granted, the burden proof is on both sides those who affirm that life came from none life naturally and those who claim that it happened by design have the burden proof.


the law of biogenesis is simply the second law of thermodynamics with a costume,

Life is a system with low entropy that came from a system with high entropy, and we know that designers can create low entropy form high entropy.

an intelligent designer (not necessarily God) can in theory manipulate a disordered system of amino acids order it, and create life.................natural laws and mechanisms, as far as we know cant do this.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

again, the law applies to all known living things. if you what to argue that life in the past was inmune to this law, feel free to provide your evidence.

Complete bollocks. You're overlooking the domain of applicability. To the extent that this law applies to all life, it's wrong. Abiogenesis is a fact. Pasteur was dealing with a very specific set of ideas, of which modern chemical abiogenesis is not an example.

granted, the burden proof is on both sides those who affirm that life came from none life naturally and those who claim that it happened by design have the burden proof.

Bollocks. These are two prongs of a single dilemma, and the affirmative is the one that asserts the existence of a designer.

the law of biogenesis is simply the second law of thermodynamics with a costume,

Total cock. The law of biogenesis is precisely fuck all to do with thermodynamics.

Life is a system with low entropy that came from a system with high entropy, and we know that designers can create low entropy form high entropy.

We've already established that you have no idea of what entropy actually is.

an intelligent designer (not necessarily God) can in theory manipulate a disordered system of amino acids order it, and create life.................natural laws and mechanisms, as far as we know cant do this.

What's this 'we' business? Why is it that those who study this material and actually understand it don't share your position?

If you're going to treat science as a branch of apologetics, you should at least acquire some competence to speak about science, and you have none.