Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[Rumraket]

Your “evidence” was not ignored, I have said many times that for the sake of this thread we are assuming that amino acids can be created naturally, and to include your papers, we can assume that amino acids appeared in any ratio and chronological order that you might find convenient.

You don't seem to have comprehended what the evidence I referenced actually means. Nor even what evidence actually is. What it means for an observation to constitute evidence for a hypothesis.

In order for some piece of data (which can be some piece of data, like a temperature measurement) to be evidence for a hypothesis and not evidence for another hypothesis, at least two conditions must be met. First of all, the hypothesis must predict the data (for example what the temperature will be), and second there must not be other and contradictory hypotheses that predict the same thing.

Now, regarding the evidence I referenced:
It's not just about "creating amino acids".

It is about a PREDICTION from theories of abiogenesis, and then FINDING what they predict. And how no other theory predicts this. It therefore satisfies the two criteria of predictive hypothesis testing I detailed above, and is therefore evidence FOR abiogenesis, and NOT evidence for anything else.

it is not "evidence that amino acids can be created naturally in particular ratios". The evidence is of the form of a predicted amino-acid composition of ancestral protein states from the earliest stages of life. This composition is predicted to match the composition one would expect to get from abiotic chemistry. IF these two compositons MATCH, as theories of abiogenesis predict, then a piece of evidence for abiogenesis has been found.

It is evidence of abiogenesis. That abiogenesis happened and that it was a natural event governed by well-known physical and chemical laws. It isn't PROOF of abiogenesis (meaning that it IS possible to rationalize it as being compatible with some other hypothesis), but it IS evidence.

You still have the entropy problem that has been described + many other problems

There is no entropy problem. Entropy is not a problem because the Earth is not an isolated system, neither are individual molecules, or the structures they can and do assemble into.

And there is zero evidence that nature "can't" produce life from non-life. The only way you can have evidence for such a claim is if you have evidence that shows that the transition from non-life to life requires a violation of a fundamental law or force of nature. There is no such evidence.

Not true, the existence of pink elephants does not contradict any fundamental law ether, but it is still fare to assume that pink elephants don’t exist, anyone who affirms that pink elephants exists has a burden proof.

What the hell does this elephant crap has to do with what I'm saying?

You don't seem to have understood what I wrote. Your pink-elephant analogy here bears no relation to the logic of the argument I made.

To spell it out for you more: Merely observing that under some limited condition X, event Y does not take place, is not evidence that event Y physically cannot take place anywhere in nature.

Why? Here's why:
Would it be correct to say that, if we try to make a flying machine powered by a propeller fly on the moon where there is no air, and we fail to make it fly, that flying machines powered by propellers are physically impossible everywhere in nature?

Or how about: Hurricanes never form over arid desert environments, therefore hurricanes are physically impossible everywhere in nature? Is the observation that hurricanes never form over arid desert environments, a piece of evidence that indicates that hurricanes actually can't physically form anywhere in nature?

No, obviously not.

So what WOULD constitute evidence that flying machines powered by propellers are physically impossible everywhere in nature?

Well, either we would have to have tested a very very large fraction of all physically possible environments and conditions in nature, or we would have to know that some property of flying machines powered by propellers are in a fundamental conflict with how nature works.

To go back to the subject of abiogenesis, we are clearly not in such a situation. We have NOT tested a very large fraction of all physically possible environments and conditions in nature, barely even an infinitesimal speck of them. There have really only been a tiny handful of serious experiments, and they weren't even really testing theories for the origin of life. Rather they were testing particuar aspects of theories of chemistry thought to have operated on the early Earth.
And we don't have even the slightest indication that abiogenesis would require violation of a fundamental natural law.

Similarly you are affirming that abiogenesis took place naturally so you have a burden proof.

Yes, and evidence has indeed been provided.

There is no fundamental law that prevents ink to form meaningful sentences naturally but anyone who claims that a book was created naturally would have to face a fundamental “statistical problem” and this problem would be so big that any “nature did it hypothesis” would be dropped

All books were created naturally. Nobody is violating the laws of nature, or performing a miracle or divine intervention, when they write a book.

 

[Rumraket]

Positive evidence for a designer has been provided,

Really? Where?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Regarding pink elephants...

Pink elephant caught on camera.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

The relevant point is this:
Natural Abiogenesis inherits an entropy problem (not to mention other problems) this means that there are many possible combinations and states I which amino acids can exists but only few configurations would produce something that we would call life (organic self replicating stuff) and there is nothing in the laws or the mechanisms in nature that would force the required order and configuration. (this is why “snowflakes” is not analogous to this, in the case of snowflakes we have a mechanism that forces hexagonal patterns. ) This is analogous to “there are many combinations and states in which ink can exists but only few combinations would produce a book with letters and meaningful sentences.

Your argument fails to account for natural selection.

To continue your analogy, if you throw letters at a page, it won't write a sentence. But throw letters at a page and 'keep' the ones which work to make a sentence, and you'd very rapidly be able to write that sentence. Of course, this would be teleological, because you'd have to intend a particular sentence in advance to arrive at, whereas, in chemical evolution, what would be retained would be anything that worked.

Your argument raises some kind of trials notion, whether that be serial trials, or finite trials... but either way, you're not accounting for the huge number of potential interactions, or the fact you only need it to happen once for life to then begin through chemical combinations.

As such, you've actually already accepted the potential for life to evolve naturally.

Of course, you're still making the mistake that entropy is an issue for life, whereas life is expressly an artifact of it: proton gradients.

It is also worth mentioning that this “entropy the problem” because more problematic as scientific knowledge improves, in other words far from solving the problem, science has discovered that the problem is more difficult to solve than previously thought.

Scientifically speaking, your claim is nonsense. There is no entropy problem, only a paucity of comprehension of that subject on your part.

We both agree that this entropy problem, the only difference seems to be that we have different opinions on how to handle this problem.

I am not sure anyone here agrees with it. Could you cite the relevant portion of text which supposedly shows this agreement?

You believe that this is a minor problem and that one can simply sit on the couch and assume that science someday will solve this problem.

This clearly is a strawman because no one in this thread has written anything like this.

I would say that this is a big problem and that we should put in to question natural abiogenesis.

I would say that there are ample questions regarding abiogenesis, and we don't need to raise functionally stupid ones.

My position is grounded on the fact that every time “nature” encounters an analogous problem we always infer intelligent design, if we find a book with meaningful sentences we would always infer design, even if we don’t know who the designer is, nor where did he come from.

Firstly, no of course 'we' don't. 'We' haven't been inferring intelligent design since prior to the modern scientific age. Inferring design says nothing about the provenance of the phenomenon, only about the limitations of our understanding and imagination.

You position seems to be grounded on the fact that according to you design should be rejected by default.

It's rather than design shouldn't be inferred where there's no evidence for design, and where natural forces can adequately account for the phenomenon. Design, of course, requires there to be an agent of design, so your scenario is question-begging: we can't provide evidence for X phenomenon occurring naturally, therefore an unevidenced designer must have made X phenomenon occur. Similarly, there is zero utility in such a proclamation - it's what held the Christian and Muslim world back technologically for centuries. How did the designer do that? Don't know? Then it's not even a testable 'hypothesis'.

What you're proposing has nothing to do with science - it's wholly a religious enterprise.

PS changing water in to wine, inherits the same entropy problem and you already admitted that changing water in to wine (in some contexts) would imply a miracle, so why not using the same logic with life? Why making this arbitrary exception?

For clarity, LEROY, you've already been informed that water turns into wine all by itself with precisely zero designer involvement, ergo your analogy is either flawed, or actually highlights the problem with people inferring design based on their own personal ignorance of natural phenomena.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Positive evidence for a designer has been provided,

LEROY, stop lying.

No evidence has been given for a designer in the whole of human history.

 

[Sparhafoc]

However it is true that every time we encounter an analogous entropy problem we solve it with a designer.

Every time?

Great, so then it will be easy for you to show dozens of historical examples of 'entropy problems' being solved by inferring a designer. Let's be blunt LEROY, we all know you're talking out of your rectal passage... again.

In reality, of course, people have been asserting designers for as long as there have been humans, but no evidence has ever been forthcoming, which is why such arguments are religious rather than scientific in scope. They're all about presuppositions, misplaced confidence, and faith that apparent reality is wrong and the preferred inherited narrative is right.

What has actually repeatedly been found is that we n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothesis-la... there is no need of the design hypothesis because natural forces are adequate to explain it.

In reality, ignorance has always posited agency in scenarios which are not just better explained with natural forces, but once the absurd contention of design is dropped, the subject explodes with vitality and humanity steps out of the dark cave it was previously hiding in.

Design is a dead end - history has shown us that time and time and time again. It offers no utility in understanding any phenomenon. It fails to account for anything because any quantity could be any other configuration if a supernatural designer had created it. It is the death of inquiry, learning, and discovery.

Of course some people will still believe that there's an angry spirit in the volcano which makes it erupt, and such people will continue making offerings to appease that god, but science is under no obligation to pretend that they have a seat at the table. Factual reality is not democratic.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The lion's share of dandan/leroy's post to me was handle by others, so I will just cover a few things.

Natural Abiogenesis inherits an entropy problem...

:facepalm:

You already admitted that this was not a problem.

PS changing water in to wine, inherits the same entropy problem and you already admitted that changing water in to wine (in some contexts) would imply a miracle, so why not using the same logic with life? Why making this arbitrary exception?

:facepalm:

Yeah, the context I was talking about is found in the Bible when Jesus used magic to turn water into wine. The point being that you were supposed to demonstrate a magical origin to life. Have you honestly been missing that this whole time? Do you not think Jesus changed water into wine with magic? Oh, and you said you were going to start defending JesusDidIt. How exactly did you think you could do that without demonstrating magic?

Positive evidence for a designer has been provided,

:lol:

 

[leroy]

You don't seem to have comprehended what the evidence I referenced actually means. Nor even what evidence actually is. What it means for an observation to constitute evidence for a hypothesis.

As I said before, there is nothing in you articles that I am not willing to grant. Sure lets assume early life was made out of amino acids that where relatively abundant back then.

To keep up with the book analogy, let’s say that the ink in the book was made out of chemicals that are relatively abundant in the island where the book was found. …………..design would still be the best explanation for the origin of the book.

it is not "evidence that amino acids can be created naturally in particular ratios". The evidence is of the form of a predicted amino-acid composition of ancestral protein states from the earliest stages of life. This composition is predicted to match the composition one would expect to get from abiotic chemistry. IF these two compositons MATCH, as theories of abiogenesis predict, then a piece of evidence for abiogenesis has been found.

While you can call it a “correct prediction” it is still true that there is nothing in your papers that explains how/why these amino acids organize themselves in the pattern and ordered required to produce something that we would call life.

There are many combinations and orders in which amino acids can exists, and few combinations would produce something that we would call life, there is no natural mechanism that would “force” amino acids to organize themselves in the ordered required to produce life, this is analogous to “there are many ways in which ink can be organized, but only few combinations of ink would produce something that we would call a book with meaningful sentences” and there is no known natural mechanism that would force ink to organize itself in such an order.

This is what I mean with “entropy problem” in order to have life you need to organize amino acids in a very specific unlikely and complex order, and there is no known natural mechanism that would force this particular order.
The good news is that this doesn’t have to be an endless conversation, because we all seem to agree that such a problem exists, otherwise scientists wouldn’t be working so hard in solving this problem. The only point of disagreement seems to be on how we should interpret this problem.

I would argue that this is a serious problem and a big obstacle and that “natural abiogenesis” should be put in to question on the basis of this problem. I am not saying that natural abiogenesis gets absolutely falsified on the basis of this problem, but it does provide room for reasonable doubt.

You would argue that this is a minor problem that can be ignored. And that natural abiogenesis is still an uncontroversial fact and that there is no room for skepticism nor reasonable doubt. So far I haven’t seen any justification for taking this attitude.

So what makes you think that your interpretation is better than mine?

There is no entropy problem. Entropy is not a problem because the Earth is not an isolated system, neither are individual molecules, or the structures they can and do assemble into.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
It is almost as if atheists where born with a gene that prevents them to understand the concept of entropy, in the context of statistical mechanics, whether if the planet is an open system or not is irrelevant.
This is an accurate definition of entropy

in statistical mechanics, it's (entropy) a measure of uncertainty, specifically the uncertainty of a system being in a particular configuration. This can loosely be described as the number of different ways a system could be reconfigured without changing its appearance. This latter is also related to information entropy or Shannon entropy.

So, beginning with statistical mechanics: In statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of uncertainty or probability. If a system is in an improbable configuration, it is said to be in a state of low entropy.

The classic analogy employed here is the desktop strewn with bits of paper. You can move one piece of paper without appreciably altering the appearance of the desktop. Statistically speaking, this configuration, or one of the many configurations it could have while still remaining untidy, is more probable than one in which the desktop is tidy. Thus, it is in a state of high entropy.

In other words and untidy desk is more likely than a tidy desk, and the fact that the desk is in an open system because it receives energy from the sun is irrelevant

You don't seem to have understood what I wrote. Your pink-elephant analogy here bears no relation to the logic of the argument I made.

To spell it out for you more: Merely observing that under some limited condition X, event Y does not take place, is not evidence that event Y physically cannot take place anywhere in nature.

Granted, but the burden proof is on the guy who affirm that Y would happen under some other conditions.

In this case you are the guy who is affirming (apparently with certainty) that in the past amino acids naturally organize themselves in the order and pattern required to produce something that we would call life………….so the burden proof is yours.

 

[leroy]

You already admitted that this was not a problem.

This is what I actually said, why don’t you quote my words instead of just throwing random links?

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

What I meant is that these entropy problems, don’t absolutely falsify “natural abiogenesis” but they do represent true challenges that have to be solved before claiming with certainty that natural abiogenesis took place.

Yeah, the context I was talking about is found in the Bible when Jesus used magic to turn water into wine. The point being that you were supposed to demonstrate a magical origin to life.

The point of that conversation was that, you admitted that you would conclude magic (or at least intelligent design) if someone knocks your door and turns water in to wine.

My point is that turning water in to wine is analogous to turning amino acids in to life. While we don’t know if water ever turn in to wine, we do know that amino acids did turn in to life, at some point in the past, so why aren’t you concluding “magic” or at least intelligent design?

"you were going to start defending JesusDidIt"

Please quote my actual words in the actual context

 

[leroy]

However it is true that every time we encounter an analogous entropy problem we solve it with a designer.

Every time?

Great, so then it will be easy for you to show dozens of historical examples of 'entropy problems' being solved by inferring a designer. Let's be blunt LEROY, we all know you're talking out of your rectal passage... again.

In reality, of course, people have been asserting designers for as long as there have been humans, but no evidence has ever been forthcoming, which is why such arguments are religious rather than scientific in scope. They're all about presuppositions, misplaced confidence, and faith that apparent reality is wrong and the preferred inherited narrative is right.

What has actually repeatedly been found is that we n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothesis-la... there is no need of the design hypothesis because natural forces are adequate to explain it.

In reality, ignorance has always posited agency in scenarios which are not just better explained with natural forces, but once the absurd contention of design is dropped, the subject explodes with vitality and humanity steps out of the dark cave it was previously hiding in.

Design is a dead end - history has shown us that time and time and time again. It offers no utility in understanding any phenomenon. It fails to account for anything because any quantity could be any other configuration if a supernatural designer had created it. It is the death of inquiry, learning, and discovery.

Of course some people will still believe that there's an angry spirit in the volcano which makes it erupt, and such people will continue making offerings to appease that god, but science is under no obligation to pretend that they have a seat at the table. Factual reality is not democratic.

I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.

I have the impression that you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems, maybe it is my fault maybe I am very bad in explaining stuff, but I honestly did my best effort in explaining it. If you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems there is nothing I can do.

But maybe I am wrong, maybe you do understand which is why I am kindly asking you to show that you understand.

 

[Sparhafoc]

There are so many misunderstandings you've got LEROY, but let's focus on this:

In other words and untidy desk is more likely than a tidy desk, and the fact that the desk is in an open system because it receives energy from the sun is irrelevant

You misunderstand.

This is not about chance as per your comprehension of the notion, there is no 'likelihood' calculable of some general archetypal Platonic set of desks with objective standards of tidiness. (You need to think about the assumptions made in your analogy and whether they are remotely applicable, but we'll come back to that)

Chance, in the way you mean it, is only calculable for specific defined systems or states, i.e. a specific desk, thereby acknowledging that each instance has a particular contingent history, a particular environment, and countless particular factors available for judging what is tidy and what is not making calculating 'chance' in the naive way you use it utterly nonsensical.

To continue your own analogy, most desks are never made - far more legs, supports, tops and assorted parts to make desks are made than actual desks, plus how many desks have been planned but never even started... therefore the 'most likely' way for a desk to be is to not actually exist. If you think that's nonsensical, that's the point. The limitations resulting from a poor analogy do not confer such confusion onto the topic they're supposedly analogizing.

What there actually is a way to calculate with respect to possible configurations, or to appeal to should one need to make an argument, is that there are more ways for a desk to be untidy than there are for it to be tidy. That's a much more coherent notion that will help you better express whatever idea it is that you think this helps.

But of course, tidiness and desks are a poor metaphor for so many reasons as already hinted at, so it's always going to be a question as to why someone wishing to discuss a particular specialist subject needs to employ analogies rather than talking about the specific system and mechanics they actually want to talk about.

For example, even among humans, there is no universally accepted notion of tidy. What may be tidy for one person is not for another. There is unarguably a huge range of ways for a desk to be untidy, but there is also far more than just one way for a desk to be tidy, and employing the same imaginative twist as per your argument, I could also simply declare there to be near infinite ways in which a desk could be tidy.

Desks also present a problem. See, desks are already effects of intent. They are purposed devices. They exist solely because some clever bastard thought it'd be nice to sit and have their supper on something other than their floor and then a lot of other clever bastards, at least in terms of eating arrangements, agreed with her. The ways in which a desk could actually be, were our imaginations not restricted to whatever archetypes we can imagine, are potentially infinite in form.

Therefore, we now have a potentially infinite number of ways a desk could be, and a potentially infinite number of ways in which any sort of desk could be untidy, and consequently when one wants to calculate probabilities in the naive manner in which you've presented your knock-down argument ( :lol: ) if we divide infinity (the number of ways a desk could be untidy) by infinity (the number of ways in which a desk could be tidy) we end up with infinity, rendering your argument absolutely barmy, obviously totally oblivious to much of what would be necessary to have any form of serious opinion on this subject.

I think it should be taken as simple fact that if you want to expound on a topic, then you wholly delegitimize yourself when the only way you can engage on it is through simplistic analogies. I've seen what real discourse on entropy looks like, and what you've written has no fucking resemblance at all. Worse, the distracting analogies employed are themselves full off erroneous undisclosed assumptions suggesting barely a passing familiarity with the subject, let alone the crowed self-pleasuring tone which accompanies this dump on the table of rational debate.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Quick summary of comment order...

However it is true that every time we encounter an analogous entropy problem we solve it with a designer.

Every time?

Great, so then it will be easy for you to show dozens of historical examples of 'entropy problems' being solved by inferring a designer. Let's be blunt LEROY, we all know you're talking out of your rectal passage... again.

I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.

i) claimant makes a very confident, absolutist claim. A clear assertion.
ii) assertion is challenged - examples of the claim requested.
iii) refusal to provide evidence prior to challenger engaging in a guess who game about what the claimant means when they make their absolutist claim.

I shall not give you evidence, good sir - my assertion is to be taken as self-evident, and pox be upon thee shouldst thou denieth my claim for you make mock of yourself! Now perform thee this trick!

I have the impression that you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems, maybe it is my fault maybe I am very bad in explaining stuff, but I honestly did my best effort in explaining it. If you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems there is nothing I can do.

If I don't understand your bad explanations, then there's just nothing I can do?

Um, ok. Sorry, if I was standing on your ego's shadow or something. I'll get out of your world immediately!

Could you even spell narcissism were it not written in this very sentence? I highly doubt it, even though in Spanish it shares a Latin etymological root with the English, unfortunately the latter language had the tendency to be a bit of an asshole when it comes to spelling Latin derived words, so it would have but one 's' everywhere else, yet 2 in English.

Fun isn't it? Our little talks. Yeah.

But maybe I am wrong, maybe you do understand which is why I am kindly asking you to show that you understand.

It is indeed very kind of you to gate providing evidence for your claims behind demanded tricks being performed such as showing that X person knows what Y person means when they say Z, because it's obviously not the responsibility of Y to state what they mean, and if they fail to correctly explicate it, obviously it's entirely the obligation of X to engage in circular activities to delay and obfuscate.

I agree.

Let's do this for 4... no 5 more pages, then drop the subject completely before referring to it again in 17 pages time pretending that all the evil atheist clones utterly failed and the masterful LEROY vanquished all?


But... well....

I know it might sound blasphemous... but we've... well, you've - let's be blunt - have kind of done that 232,324,643,231 times before, and it's getting a little tired now.

So how about this eh?

How about you acknowledge the fact that you are just winging it, stop pretending you're something you're not to strangers on the internet for silly, silly reasons, and become a better person thereby in 2018?

Merry Christmas and hopefully a dramatically more evolved New Year!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You already admitted that this was not a problem.

This is what I actually said, why don’t you quote my words instead of just throwing random links?

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

What I meant is that these entropy problems, don’t absolutely falsify “natural abiogenesis” but they do represent true challenges that have to be solved before claiming with certainty that natural abiogenesis took place.

I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty. You know if you actually took the time to read what was been written you would not have this much egg on your face. However, if you are not propping this as an insurmountable challenge, than you are failing to make a point with your god of the gaps fallacy here. Let us not forget that the only reason you bring this up is because you want to say "We cannot explain this, thus JesusDidIt." That does lose its sting when said as, "This seems unlikely to be explained, thus JesusDidIt."

Yeah, the context I was talking about is found in the Bible when Jesus used magic to turn water into wine. The point being that you were supposed to demonstrate a magical origin to life.

The point of that conversation was that, you admitted that you would conclude magic (or at least intelligent design) if someone knocks your door and turns water in to wine.

:facepalm:

Like Jesus did in the Bible story. You know, the one were he used magic. Honestly, have you been missing this this whole time? I can go to any winery and see water turn into wine all day, that is not magic.

:docpalm:

My point is that turning water in to wine is analogous to turning amino acids in to life. While we don’t know if water ever turn in to wine, we do know that amino acids did turn in to life, at some point in the past, so why aren’t you concluding “magic” or at least intelligent design?

:docpalm:

Because no one has showed up to my door and magically demonstrated it to me. Again, were you really missing this this whole time? Are you truly this dense?

"you were going to start defending JesusDidIt"

Please quote my actual words in the actual context

Why bother? Here is the link, again. It is telling that you left it out. Telling, but not surprising at this point.

 

[leroy]

Sparhafoc,

Should I repeat my words?

LEROY wrote:
I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.

 

[Sparhafoc]

turning water in to wine is analogous to turning amino acids in to life

Except, of course, it isn't at all.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc,

Should I repeat my words?

LEROY wrote:
I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.

Yes, please do as predicted.

As always, it will show that you lack the capacity to discuss the subject you're pretending mastery of, and that reasoned discourse is completely alien to you.

So I'll repeat my reply to you, you'll ignore it and copy and paste your distraction, and so it goes for 4 or 5 pages until the conversation has shifted enough that you think that no one will notice that you dropped it, then in 17 pages you'll refer to this as if you had already supported your claim and it was undefeated.

Yes, we know.

Here you go...


Quick summary of comment order...

However it is true that every time we encounter an analogous entropy problem we solve it with a designer.

Every time?

Great, so then it will be easy for you to show dozens of historical examples of 'entropy problems' being solved by inferring a designer. Let's be blunt LEROY, we all know you're talking out of your rectal passage... again.

I won’t reply until you proof to me that you understand what I mean by entropy problems, explain with your own words what I mean with entropy problem, and provide examples and analogies.

i) claimant makes a very confident, absolutist claim. A clear assertion.
ii) assertion is challenged - examples of the claim requested.
iii) refusal to provide evidence prior to challenger engaging in a guess who game about what the claimant means when they make their absolutist claim.

I shall not give you evidence, good sir - my assertion is to be taken as self-evident, and pox be upon thee shouldst thou denieth my claim for you make mock of yourself! Now perform thee this trick!

I have the impression that you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems, maybe it is my fault maybe I am very bad in explaining stuff, but I honestly did my best effort in explaining it. If you don’t understand what I mean by entropy problems there is nothing I can do.

If I don't understand your bad explanations, then there's just nothing I can do?

Um, ok. Sorry, if I was standing on your ego's shadow or something. I'll get out of your world immediately!

Could you even spell narcissism were it not written in this very sentence? I highly doubt it, even though in Spanish it shares a Latin etymological root with the English, unfortunately the latter language had the tendency to be a bit of an asshole when it comes to spelling Latin derived words, so it would have but one 's' everywhere else, yet 2 in English.

Fun isn't it? Our little talks. Yeah.

But maybe I am wrong, maybe you do understand which is why I am kindly asking you to show that you understand.

It is indeed very kind of you to gate providing evidence for your claims behind demanded tricks being performed such as showing that X person knows what Y person means when they say Z, because it's obviously not the responsibility of Y to state what they mean, and if they fail to correctly explicate it, obviously it's entirely the obligation of X to engage in circular activities to delay and obfuscate.

I agree.

Let's do this for 4... no 5 more pages, then drop the subject completely before referring to it again in 17 pages time pretending that all the evil atheist clones utterly failed and the masterful LEROY vanquished all?


But... well....

I know it might sound blasphemous... but we've... well, you've - let's be blunt - have kind of done that 232,324,643,231 times before, and it's getting a little tired now.

So how about this eh?

How about you acknowledge the fact that you are just winging it, stop pretending you're something you're not to strangers on the internet for silly, silly reasons, and become a better person thereby in 2018?

Merry Christmas and hopefully a dramatically more evolved New Year!

 

[leroy]

I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty.

Ok so in conclusion :
1 the “entropy problems” are there and have not been solved
2 we don’t know with 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place
3 there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps "natural abiogenesis" didn’t took place

1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?

Do you also agree with 3?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I do not quote you, because why waste the time? You will just mindlessly respond after taking 5-20 minutes of looking at a post.

Second, no one has ever claimed it was solved or that natural abiogenesis happened with 100% certainty.

Ok so in conclusion :
1 the “entropy problems” are there and have not been solved
2 we don’t know with 100% certainty that natural abiogenesis took place
3 there is room for reasonable doubt, perhaps "natural abiogenesis" didn’t took place

1 and 2 have been granted explicitly
What about 3?

Do you also agree with 3?

1) nonsensical wittering suggesting that your alleged mastery of the topic is purely bluff and you lack even the most elementary comprehension of entropy as evidenced in this very thread.

2) We never know anything with 100% absolute certainty - that's religion's blindness. Science operates on error bars and orders of magnitude, as you've been told before, science measures its own uncertainty and works to minimize it. What we do know is that natural abiogenesis cannot be falsified - it works according to every principle of nature we know and appears to solve a specific question. Exactly how it took place, less sure; that it took place, reasonable degree of confidence functionally equivalent to vast tracts of useful modern scientific knowledge.

3) No, you don't argue your way out of empirical reality, that's clownery. As hard as you may try to kick holes in the edifice of knowledge to make gaps for your god, it just makes you a religiously motivated Herostratus.

 

[leroy]

Like Jesus did in the Bible story. You know, the one were he used magic. Honestly, have you been missing this this whole time? I can go to any winery and see water turn into wine all day, that is not magic.

You are the one who is not following, we both agree that design would be the best explanation if water in a cup turns in to wine. agree?

Because it would be very improbable that molecules from the air somehow organized themselves naturally in the exact ratio of molecules required to do wine, somehow ended up in the cup. agree?........if you disagree please explain under what basis do you afirm that water can not turn in to wine naturally Like Jesus did in the Bible?

I would argue that abiogenesis cant occur naturally for the same reason it would be very improbable that molecules somehow organize in the order and pattern required to create life,

 

[Sparhafoc]

You are the one who is not following, we both agree that design would be the best explanation if water in a cup turns in to wine. agree?

Pages ago.

Grapes ferment without any external agency, so that's the end of that foray into fantasy.

Because it would be very improbable that molecules from the air somehow organized themselves naturally in the exact ratio of molecules required to do wine,...

This which and the what now?

You do know what wine is, right?

Do you know what fermentation is?

If yes to these two questions, then you must know your point is nonsensical because agency is not required for water to turn into wine, it's what grape plants do under certain circumstances.

somehow ended up in the cup. agree?

A cup?

From whence cometh the cup? Are we going to go straight to question-begging?

No cups are required for water to become wine.

........if you disagree please explain under what basis do you afirm that water can not turn in to wine naturally Like Jesus did in the Bible?

Your sentence is completely garbled.

I clearly and unarguably have 'affirmed' many times that you are talking hogwash because we know very well that grape plants turn water into wine under very specific circumstances, ergo there's no intent required to make wine.

Does that now mean you cease believing in the necessity for agency?

Of course it doesn't, which shows why your 'arguments' (to use the phrase very loosely) are not real, not honest, not well-considered... they're apologetics unfortunately mistargeted at people who aren't brainwashed into accepting those apologetics, and consequently, they attain no host.

In reality, you'd never accept that your argument reversed mean god = no, so you should really question why you'd bother arguing in the first place.

Of course, this is way beyond your sophistication.

I would argue that abiogenesis cant occur naturally for the same reason it would be very improbable that molecules somehow organize in the order and pattern required to create life,

How improbable; please show your working.

I would say that probability is a bit of a pointless misdirection because of the scenario under which chemical abiogenesis could have occurred would have made billions of concurrent trials occur repeatedly, so even if the 'chance' is very low, run enough trials and it will occur.

Again, way beyond your comprehension, though.