Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[Rumraket]

Statistical thermodynamics says that the total entropy of an isolated system will on average always increase. None of the entities around us are isolated systems. Living cells aren't isolated systems, airplanes aren't isolated systems, the Earth isn't an isolated system, proteins aren't isolated systems, metabolic networks aren't isolated systems.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say the origin of life is impossible, nor that entropy can't decrease in an open system. All the entities around us are open systems. Cells are open systems. Proteins are open systems. DNA is an open system. The Earth, it's atmosphere and the oceans are all open systems.

You keep opening your mouth and making pronouncements on matters of which you know next to nothing. Just stop please.

Wrong statistical thermodynamics don’t care is the system is isolated or not

Yes it does. It is of fundamental importance.

you can’t get an airplane form a junkyard regardless if the junk yard is open or close.

Human beings making an airplane is an instance of the laws of thermodynamics playing out. When human take actions to put together a complicated object, it is at the conversion of energy into less usable forms. You eat food that powers the processes in your brain, and the actions of your muslces, so that you can pick the parts and pick them together. In this process you generate heat through mechanical friction and the burning of organic molecules in your cells. These in turn increase the total entropy of the universe, even though locally you reduce the entropy of the parts in the junkyard into an airplane.

At no point is anything about thermodynamics violated. This stupid picture you have where "intelligence" somehow violates fundamental natural laws is fundamentally wrong.

This is because there are many possible combinations in which “junk” can be organized but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce something that you would call an airplane. And there is not a bias in the laws of nature where a combination that produces an airplane would be favored.

Yes there is, and human beings creating an airplane is an instance of the laws of thermodynamics resulting in an airplane. The total entropy of the universe is increased as heat dissipates out in the atmosphere and surroundings. You create raise the entropy of the universe more by the simple act of moving your muscles, than you could ever wish to reduce it by carefully moving the parts in the junkyard around. There is no way around this. Maxwell's Demon is a practical physical impossibility.

This is why it is said that a junk yard (or primordial soup) has high entropy and an airplane (or life) low entropy.

The airplane has lower entropy than the junkyard, but the surrounding atmosphere of the Earth, and the universe as a whole, will increase in total entropy, when a human being acts to put that airplane together. Because the process generates heat through friction and the chemical processes that power your cells.

The same basic principle is at work everywhere in the universe. Where there are local reductions in entropy happening, they come at the cost of greater total entropy of the system as a whole. Whether a human being assembles an airplane, or a fire burns wood to charcoal, or liquid water freezes into ice, or evaporates and leaves calcium carbonate spots in your kitchen wares. These are all examples of local reductions in entropy happening at the cost of an increase in the total entropy of the greater system. And they are possible because the local effects take place in either open or closed systems, which are themselves embedded a larger system (the universe) that is possibly isolated.

The equations that I quoted, work in both open and closed systems

You didn't quote any equations, you gave a link to a wikipedia article on entropy, and it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

And you're still bullshitting about stuff you don't understand and have no formal education in. Please just shut the fuck up and move on to a different thread on a different topic.

 

[Rumraket]

For anyone wondering about Leroy's latest flurry of fail regarding thermodynamics and the evolution(origin) of the first life from non-life:
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

He's talking bullshit, as usual.

 

[Rumraket]

Here's a link for Leroy: https://www.khanacademy.org/science...f-thermodynamics/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics

 

[leroy]

Here's a link for Leroy: https://www.khanacademy.org/science...f-thermodynamics/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics

I don’t think I would disagree with you in any of these points, the problem is that I am talking about entropy as it relates to statistics, while you are talking about entropy in the classical sense of the word.


From the point of view of statistics entropy is simply a defined as the “order” or “randomness” of a system.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node56.html



Please let me know which of these statements do you disagree with:

1 The reason why you can’t get an airplane from a junk yard, is because there are many possible combination in which “molecules” can exist that would form something that you would call a junk yard and there are relatively few combinations that would produce something that you would call an airplane. So it is not literally impossible to have an airplane, but it is extremely improbable.

2 point “1” is true because of statistical thermodynamics. (if you disagree with this point please explain which law, theory, theorem, or scientific principle explains the fact that “1” is true)


3 that “junk yards” is analogous to “primordial soup*” and airplanes to life (if not, why not?)



*if you don’t believe in the primordial soup, feel free to change the concept for whatever environment your favorite hypothesis proclaims.

Given that statistical thermodynamics is just a probabilistic principle, any free agent (even if not supernatural) can freely select a given combination of “molecules” even if this combination is not the most probable combination. …..”A free agent can freely select a red marble from the bowl, even if the 99% of the marbles are green.” this is true and has nothign to do with energy.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic!

.

Again, anyone can read my actual words and note that I am not saying that I would deny the evidence, all I said is that you would need more than just a video to convince me in that particular (hypothetical) example.

:lol:

You are not saying you would deny evidence, you are just saying that you would deny evidence. Got it. Nice double-speak. Dandan/Leroy, who do you think that is convincing?

Just to be clear, I would not deny that the video is there, and I would not deny that the video counts as evidence, all I am saying is that you would need additional evidence to convince me.

Right... You are denying it to suit your needs. What would work as evidence normally does not count in this case because it involves you, as I already said. Again, who do you think you are convincing with this double-speak?

At this point you can argue that you misunderstood my point, and I would interpret that as a fare mistake.

Your point is that you are not denying evidence, because in this case what would normally count as sufficient evidence does not count because it involves you. Again, who do you honestly think you can convince with this?

[sarcasm]Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it.[/sarcasm]

:lol:

Now you want it beyond a reasonable doubt? Thus, it is not good enough to have scientific evidence for it, but it has to meet what you think is reasonable doubt. Well, as I keep pointing out, you already said you would deny evidence (see above), so I am not sure what you think it reasonable. However, I do think providing scientific articles that explains the working models would be called reasonable by a reasonable person

.

With “knowing beyond reasonable doubt” I simply mean that we can grant something as true, even if we are not 100% sure.

Thus, providing scientific articles that back current working models would fit that definition.

We both agree that general theory of relativity, heliocentric model, Big Bang, that Donald Trump is the US president, that triceratops existed in the past etc. are true beyond reasonable doubt, do you honestly think that your paper proves that “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable daubt? (obviously not) so if you what, change your original answer and explain why is “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, I believe it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because there is actual evidence for it. Pretty much he same amount for relativity and the Big Bang.

Again, there is nothing else to add. A reasonable person would accept scientific articles, but you already admitted that you would deny evidence (see above)

If you would have provided an article that concludes that “natural abiogenesis” is true beyond reasonable doubt you would have a point.

Again, scientific papers covering working models seems reasonable to me, but you will deny evidence (while pretending to accept it).

+ the fact that in the past you have rejected many of my claims even when I support them with journals (premise 2 in the KCA would be an example) so the only one who has proven to deny evidence despite the conclusion of scientific articles is you.

Citation needed, and I mean a scientific one. I do remember you trying to pass off a philosophy article for this once. Remember, arguments are not evidence.

You still have never addressed anything Rumraket said with anything of substance

Yes I did, my response to Rum was that the article doesn’t even try to solve the problem presented in the article that I quoted. (the article tries to solve other unrelated problems)
So far nobody has been capably of quoting the portions of the article where the authors try to solve the problem

Tis already quoted, you just ignored it, as usual.

You are trying to claim that JesusDidIt is not magic?

I don’t know, as I told you earlier, I don’t know what you mean by “magic” so please….

1 define magic

2 Explain why “Jesus did it” is magic. Explain abstract chemistry is not magic

3 explain why is “magic” (under that definition) absurd, incoherent, fallacious or whatever your position is regarding magic.

I will define magic.

AronRa[/url]"]Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.

Now this gets back to my question, if you already think JesusDidIt can fall within a natural cause, than what exactly are you arguing? That would mean that even if you could show JesusDidIt I would still be right in thinking that abiogenesis happened naturally. This gets to the heart of your argument. Now, do you think JesusDidIt is natural? If so, than why are we arguing?

I agree with that. I just pointed out that it is far more parsimonious than a supernatural explanation.

well why? justify your answer.

How do you measure parsimony?

Again, this comes down to whether you think JesusDidIt is natural or not. If you truly think JesusDidIt is natural, than non-invasive abiogenesis would still be more parsimonious, because it involves one less factor. If JesusDidIt is not natural, than abiogenesis is far more parsimonious, because we know nature exist and we are not trying to factor in something unknown.

What does that even mean? At this point is just seems like you are throwing words out. Which is amazing, because normally all you answer with is incredulity

I honestly don’t know how to explained in simpler words. What do you find so hard to understand?

You said that abstract chemistry can be accepted for negating things, but not supporting them. How exactly are you concluding that?

I admit that I was wrong, and I apologize

Then I was wrong when I said you are unable to change your mind. Thank you for that, it takes guts.

Dandan/Leroy can learn. He went from a YEC to a old age theistic evolutionist. If it were not for this slow but steady learning curve, I would have stopped interacting with him years ago.

 

[leroy]

Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it

.

It could be that the video is fake or it could be that I suffer from “false memories” implying that I pissed on that door without remembering, in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation. You may or may not agree (who cares) the important fact is that you lied because I never said that I would deny the evidence, I am simply saying that I would need more than just a video in order to conclude that I suffer from false memories and pissed the door.

I will define magic.

AronRa wrote:
Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.

Sure I accept that definition and under that definition Jesus did it would be “magic” so please justify your position why is “magic” incoherent, fallacious, false, impossible, not worthy of consideration or whatever your claim is about magic? Why should we reject “magic” as a possible explanation?

If JesusDidIt is not natural, than abiogenesis is far more parsimonious, because we know nature exist and we are not trying to factor in something unknown.

Again it is a draw, we know that intelligent designers exist and we know that nature exist, we don’t know if the particular designer that we need exists and we don’t know if the particular natural mechanism that we need exists.

Both explanations have an unknown factor.

leroy wrote:
+ the fact that in the past you have rejected many of my claims even when I support them with journals (premise 2 in the KCA would be an example) so the only one who has proven to deny evidence despite the conclusion of scientific articles is you.

Citation needed, and I mean a scientific one. I do remember you trying to pass off a philosophy article for this once. Remember, arguments are not evidence.

I have quoted this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658) which concludes that the universe had a beginning multiple times I in this forum.

3 Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past

So far the only one who has denied conclusions in scientific papers is you, I have no problem in accepting the conclusions I the paper that you quoted, my only concern is that you are making radical conclusions that not even the authors of the paper would make.

Please keep in mind I have no intent in changing the topic, the only reason why I quoted the paper is to show that I can prove that you would deny a conclusion in a paper if you personally don’t like the implications

Dandan/Leroy can learn. He went from a YEC to a old age theistic evolutionist. If it were not for this slow but steady learning curve, I would have stopped interacting with him years ago

Sure I do make mistakes every once in a while (the opposite would be statistically very unlikely) and I usually admit when I commit such mistakes, what calls my attention is that I am not aware of you admitting any relevant mistake in any conversation with any theist in this forum. These leads to 2 possibilities

ether you are super brilliant and inherent and therefore you have not made any mistakes in any discussion or you are too arrogant to even notice your mistakes.

I also have a different view today than 3 years ago, and I am sure that within the next 3 years I will have a different view;

If I were to bet I would say that you are the same atheist today (with the same arguments and view) that you where when you where 15 years old.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it

.

It could be that the video is fake or it could be that I suffer from “false memories” implying that I pissed on that door without remembering, in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation. You may or may not agree (who cares) the important fact is that you lied because I never said that I would deny the evidence, I am simply saying that I would need more than just a video in order to conclude that I suffer from false memories and pissed the door.

:lol:

Right... I am the one lying, because I am the one that claimed you would deny the evidence and in your defence for not denying the evidence you claim, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Thus, you are denying evidence to suit you, like I said.

How pathetic can one person get? I feel I must rest my case on that one.

:lol:

I will define magic.

AronRa wrote:
Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.

Sure I accept that definition and under that definition Jesus did it would be “magic” so please justify your position why is “magic” incoherent, fallacious, false, impossible, not worthy of consideration or whatever your claim is about magic? Why should we reject “magic” as a possible explanation?

I am not rejecting magic outright, I am just saying that it is not close to being considered a parsimonious answer when trying to answer any problem. For one thing, we have never seen magic, thus why would we rule in something that has never been observed? Beyond that, that places Jesus on equal ground with fairies and other supernatural beings.

If JesusDidIt is not natural, than abiogenesis is far more parsimonious, because we know nature exist and we are not trying to factor in something unknown.

Again it is a draw, we know that intelligent designers exist and we know that nature exist, we don’t know if the particular designer that we need exists and we don’t know if the particular natural mechanism that we need exists.

Both explanations have an unknown factor.

No. It is not a draw. It is not even close to a draw. You just admitted that JesusDidIt is magic and not just a designer. We have never seen anything magic happening. Thus, it is far less likely than a natural explanation. Based on that alone, a natural explanation is far more parsimonious because we already know that nature exists. Magic is not on an equal field as reality.

leroy wrote:
+ the fact that in the past you have rejected many of my claims even when I support them with journals (premise 2 in the KCA would be an example) so the only one who has proven to deny evidence despite the conclusion of scientific articles is you.

Citation needed, and I mean a scientific one. I do remember you trying to pass off a philosophy article for this once. Remember, arguments are not evidence.

I have quoted this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658) which concludes that the universe had a beginning multiple times I in this forum.

3 Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past

So far the only one who has denied conclusions in scientific papers is you, I have no problem in accepting the conclusions I the paper that you quoted, my only concern is that you are making radical conclusions that not even the authors of the paper would make.

Please keep in mind I have no intent in changing the topic, the only reason why I quoted the paper is to show that I can prove that you would deny a conclusion in a paper if you personally don’t like the implications

Where did you quote this paper to me? Strange how I am able to provide links to things yet you cannot.

Dandan/Leroy can learn. He went from a YEC to a old age theistic evolutionist. If it were not for this slow but steady learning curve, I would have stopped interacting with him years ago

Sure I do make mistakes every once in a while (the opposite would be statistically very unlikely) and I usually admit when I commit such mistakes, what calls my attention is that I am not aware of you admitting any relevant mistake in any conversation with any theist in this forum. These leads to 2 possibilities

ether you are super brilliant and inherent and therefore you have not made any mistakes in any discussion or you are too arrogant to even notice your mistakes.

I have admitted to mistakes. See how easy it is to provide a link to an example. One has to wonder why you cannot do the same. However, if you actually started to be correct about things on this forum, you might join the ranks of those who have corrected me.

I also have a different view today than 3 years ago, and I am sure that within the next 3 years I will have a different view;

Exactly my point. You can learn.

If I were to bet I would say that you are the same atheist today (with the same arguments and view) that you where when you where 15 years old.

Seeing as how I starting taking college prep-biology classes, than went to college and took anthropology, biology, and geology classes along with philosophy classes between now and when I was 15, you would fail at that bet. You almost always seem to fail whenever you make bets on this forum.

:lol:

 

[leroy]

:lol:

Right... I am the one lying, because I am the one that claimed you would deny the evidence and in your defence for not denying the evidence you claim, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Thus, you are denying evidence to suit you, like I said.

How pathetic can one person get? I feel I must rest my case on that one. .

Again I would not deny that the video is there, nor that the video counts as evidence, nor did I said that no amount of evidence will ever convince me, (therefore you lied)…. all I am sayings that I would need more than just a video to convince me.

This is not even a big deal, there are many ghosts supposedly recorded in videos, and I am pretty sure that you would not grant that as sufficient and conclusive evidence for the existence of ghosts. (you would argue that you need more than just a video)

I am not rejecting magic outright, I am just saying that it is not close to being considered a parsimonious answer when trying to answer any problem. For one thing, we have never seen magic, thus why would we rule in something that has never been observed? Beyond that, that places Jesus on equal ground with fairies and other supernatural beings.

Granted any explanation that relies on magic, abstract chemistry or any other additional assumption, by definition would be less parsimonious than an explanation that relies on fewer assumptions.

I would also add that parsimony is not the only (nor even the most important) criteria to determine the best explanation.

If JesusDidIt is not natural, than abiogenesis is far more parsimonious, because we know nature exist and we are not trying to factor in something unknown.

Both “magic” and natural abiogenesis rely on an additional assumption therefore it is a draw (in terms of parsimony) you can always argue that your assumption is more realistic than mine, but that would not be relevant for the criteria of parsimony

because we know nature exist

You seem to believe that you are making a brilliant point, that is like saying “we know that elephants exist but we know nothing about dark energy, therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Where did you quote this paper to me? Strange how I am able to provide links to things yet you cannot.

I have quoted the paper several times in this forum; to be honest I don’t remember if I ever quoted directly to you. But that has a very simple solution, I can simply ask you directly, now that you know about the existence of that paper do you grant that the universe had a beginning?

If yes; then I apologize for wrongly accusing you

If no; then you would confirm my point “you are the one who would deny conclusions of a paper”

But deep inside we both know that you will not provide a direct yes or no answer

Sure I do make mistakes every once in a while (the opposite would be statistically very unlikely) and I usually admit when I commit such mistakes, what calls my attention is that I am not aware of you admitting any relevant mistake in any conversation with any theist in this forum. These leads to 2 possibilities

I have admitted to mistakes. See how easy it is to provide a link to an example. One has to wonder why you cannot do the same. However, if you actually started to be correct about things on this forum, you might join the ranks of those who have corrected me.

I think you missed atleast 2 words (red letters) from my last comment,

I am not aware of you admitting that a theist made a good argument for God, ID, YEC…(when you previously thought it was weak argument) nor I am aware of any example in a conversation with a theist where you admitted that your original argument was not as strong as you previously thought.

So ether you are brilliant and you are never wrong, or you are too arrogant to admit your mistakes

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:lol:

Right... I am the one lying, because I am the one that claimed you would deny the evidence and in your defence for not denying the evidence you claim, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Thus, you are denying evidence to suit you, like I said.

How pathetic can one person get? I feel I must rest my case on that one. .

Again I would not deny that the video is there, nor that the video counts as evidence, nor did I said that no amount of evidence will ever convince me, (therefore you lied)…. all I am sayings that I would need more than just a video to convince me.

Wrong. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Again, you are saying the video is fake, thus you are denying it as evidence. There is really no way of getting out of this one dandan/leroy. You admitted in writing that you would say the video was fake. An honest person would just admit to their mistake, but we all know you are far from honest. You would rather accuse me of lying, even though I was correct in this case.

This is not even a big deal, there are many ghosts supposedly recorded in videos, and I am pretty sure that you would not grant that as sufficient and conclusive evidence for the existence of ghosts. (you would argue that you need more than just a video)

Are you a ghost?

:lol:

Again, how pathetic can one person get?

I am not rejecting magic outright, I am just saying that it is not close to being considered a parsimonious answer when trying to answer any problem. For one thing, we have never seen magic, thus why would we rule in something that has never been observed? Beyond that, that places Jesus on equal ground with fairies and other supernatural beings.

Granted any explanation that relies on magic, abstract chemistry or any other additional assumption, by definition would be less parsimonious than an explanation that relies on fewer assumptions.

Stop trying to place abstract chemistry on equal ground with magic. We know chemistry works, have observed chemistry, thus we can make models (abstractions) based on those observations that make predictions of what we should for see in the real world. When has magic ever been observed? If we cannot observe it, then how can we create a model of it? If we cannot make a model of it, than how are we able to make a prediction or test in reality? This is why abstract chemistry is far more parsimonious than magic.

I would also add that parsimony is not the only (nor even the most important) criteria to determine the best explanation.

Who said it was? I am just correcting your gross misunderstanding of abstract chemistry and magic when it comes to parsimony.

If JesusDidIt is not natural, than abiogenesis is far more parsimonious, because we know nature exist and we are not trying to factor in something unknown.

Both “magic” and natural abiogenesis rely on an additional assumption therefore it is a draw (in terms of parsimony) you can always argue that your assumption is more realistic than mine, but that would not be relevant for the criteria of parsimony

Wrong. Mine is based on chemistry, something we both already know exists, whereas yours is based on magic, something that we have never observed and do not know how it works if it does exist at all. That means magic has far more assumptions built into it than abstract chemistry.

because we know nature exist

You seem to believe that you are making a brilliant point, that is like saying “we know that elephants exist but we know nothing about dark energy, therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

:facepalm:

That is a terrible analogy on your part.

My point is that chemistry is just apart of nature, thus we already know that my explanation is based in reality. You already admitted that your explanation is magic, which we have no way of knowing actually exists, no way of demonstrating it, and no way of displaying how it works. That is to say, assuming nature did it is far more parsimonious than assuming magic. They are not equal in their assumptions and they are not equal when people apply them.

Where did you quote this paper to me? Strange how I am able to provide links to things yet you cannot.

I have quoted the paper several times in this forum; to be honest I don’t remember if I ever quoted directly to you. But that has a very simple solution, I can simply ask you directly, now that you know about the existence of that paper do you grant that the universe had a beginning?

If yes; then I apologize for wrongly accusing you

If no; then you would confirm my point “you are the one who would deny conclusions of a paper”

But deep inside we both know that you will not provide a direct yes or no answer

Again, provide a citation of where you cited that paper or apologize for lying. If you want an answer, you can always bring that paper up in one of the many threads you ran away from that cover that topic.

Sure I do make mistakes every once in a while (the opposite would be statistically very unlikely) and I usually admit when I commit such mistakes, what calls my attention is that I am not aware of you admitting any relevant mistake in any conversation with any theist in this forum. These leads to 2 possibilities

I have admitted to mistakes. See how easy it is to provide a link to an example. One has to wonder why you cannot do the same. However, if you actually started to be correct about things on this forum, you might join the ranks of those who have corrected me.

I think you missed atleast 2 words (red letters) from my last comment,

No. I did not miss those. I was making a bigger point of how easy it is to actually provide a link to a post in which something claimed actually happened. That is something you repeatedly fail to do.

I am not aware of you admitting that a theist made a good argument for God, ID, YEC…(when you previously thought it was weak argument)...

:lol:

That is because there are no good arguments for any of those. For example, if there were good ones for YEC, would you still be one right now and not a theistic evolutionist?

nor I am aware of any example in a conversation with a theist where you admitted that your original argument was not as strong as you previously thought.

I cannot think of an example off the top of my head either, and because of that I am not going to claim it one way or the other, unlike you.

So ether you are brilliant and you are never wrong, or you are too arrogant to admit your mistakes

Yet, I already provided a link to where I admitted to being mistaken. Guess that means I am not arrogant. Again, try being right some of the time, than you will be in the group that has corrected me.

 

[leroy]

I have quoted the paper several times in this forum; to be honest I don’t remember if I ever quoted directly to you. But that has a very simple solution, I can simply ask you directly, now that you know about the existence of that paper do you grant that the universe had a beginning?

If yes; then I apologize for wrongly accusing you

If no; then you would confirm my point “you are the one who would deny conclusions of a paper”

But deep inside we both know that you will not provide a direct yes or no answer

Again, provide a citation of where you cited that paper or apologize for lying. If you want an answer, you can always bring that paper up in one of the many threads you ran away from that cover that topic.

Again, I have provided that paper in many different threads, I personally don’t remember if you have ever interacted with it, If you affirm that you never noticed any of those posts and grant that the universe “probably” had a beginning I would take your word and apologize for my previous accusation.

If you want an answer, you can always bring that paper up in one of the many threads you ran away from that cover that topic

We both know that you will not answer with a clear and unambiguous “yes” or “no” because once again you are cornered and any direct answer would have implications that you personally don’t like.
But you can always impress me and answer clearly and unambiguously if you grant that the universe had a beginning in any of the threads where I have provided the paper.

Peer reviewed science has shown that even if you model where true, the universe would still have a beginning,

The third (your model), although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15740&p=183925&hilit=third#p183925

but even if we grant that there was time before the big bang, there would still be many reasons to assume that time begun to exist anyway,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15387&p=180590&hilit=vilenkin#p180590

this paper form Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin that concludes that eternal inflation could have not been past eternal, so even if Guth left the door open for the possibility of a beginningless universe, these 2 brilliant scientists closed that door.

Here we have addressed three scenarios(including eternal inflation) which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14780&p=182308&hilit=vilenkin#p182308

 

[leroy]

Wrong. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Again, you are saying the video is fake, thus you are denying it as evidence. There is really no way of getting out of this one dandan/leroy. You admitted in writing that you would say the video was fake. An honest person would just admit to their mistake, but we all know you are far from honest. You would rather accuse me of lying, even though I was correct in this case.

Why don’t you simply let this go and admit that you lied or even conserve some dignity and admit that you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

To put it this way, if you provide a video + an eye witness I would accept that as conclusive evidence that I urinated the car, but a single video by itself or a single eye witness by itsleve would only count as evidence (but not as conclusive evidence)

Or to put it this way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to say that I suffer from bad memories and that I urinated the car without remembering such an event, despite the fact that I usually don’t do that, seems to be an extraordinary claim and a single video does not seem to be sufficient evidence to account for such an extraordinary claim.

……..you may agree or disagree with this criteria but it is still a fact that you lied because I never said that I will not accept the evidence just because it doesnt suit me.

Are you a ghost?

:lol:

Again, how pathetic can one person get?

Why don’t you address my point? If a single video should count as sufficient evidence for any event (as you seem to believe) does that mean that you believe in ghost? (Considering the fact that there are many videos recording supposed ghosts)

That is because there are no good arguments for any of those. For example, if there were good ones for YEC, would you still be one right now and not a theistic evolutionist?

Therefore ether of all the hundreds of conversations that you have had, no theist in this forum has ever presented a good argument for theism nor a good argument against atheism or you are too arrogant to admit that there are at least some good arguments for theism and good arguments against atheism, I personally would go for the second alternative

, if there were good ones for YEC, would you still be one right now and not a theistic evolutionist?

No even though I am not a YEC, nor an atheist, nor a socialist, nor a multiverse theorist, nor pro abortion, nor a bitcoin holder I do concede the fact that there are some good arguments for YEC, atheism, socialism, multiverse, pro abortion, pro bitcoin.

Granting that there are good arguments for YEC, does not necessarily imply that I most become one,

 

[leroy]

Wrong. Mine is based on chemistry, something we both already know exists, whereas yours is based on magic, something that we have never observed


.

Again parsimony is only concern in the number of assumptions, (not in the quality of such assumptions) I am assuming that there is a designer capable of creating life, you are assuming that there is a real chemical law capable of creating life, we are making the same number of assumptions, in terms of parsimony is a draw

That is a terrible analogy on your part.

My analogy was not mean to be related to parsimony, but anyway, why us that a terrible analogy?

These 2 sentences seem to be analogous (if not why not)

1 “We know that elephants exists, we know nothing about dark energy therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the expansion of the universe.

2 “We know that chemistry exists, we know nothing about “intelligent designers therefore chemistry is a better explanation for the origin of life than ID”

Where does the analogy fail?

leroy wrote:3 Explanatory Power: your model has weak explanatory power because even if true it would not explain how life came in to be, and it wouldn’t even solve the “entropy problem” your model if true would explain how complex compounds came from simpler units by a process of selection, but it would not explain how these units arrange in the particular order and pattern required to produce life.

your reply

Pretending you are right for a moment. your model also has no explanatory power. JesusDidIt is not an explanation, since that can be true for anything we see.

An “unknown natural cause” can also be used to explain anything we see, so you robjetion also applies to “natural abiogenesis”

However it is still true that even if your model where 100% and even if you show that the simulations are representations of the real world it would still be true that you would not solve the “origin or life problem” or even the entropy problem,
Intelligent designers don’t care about entropy problems because fundamentally this is a “statistical problem” intelligent designers can willingly chose a specific pattern and order even if it is statistically unlikely.


Postulating the existence of an intelligent designer (ether natural or supernatural) that existed before life came to be in this planet, would fully solve the origin of life problem, while postulating the existence of your “abstact chemistry” would not solve the problem.

Even if I grant the existence of those cores and I grant that there is competition and a bias in creating more complex “cores” that still wouldn’t explain why amino acids organize themselves in the specific order and pattern required to produce life, rather than “non life permitting pattern” which is statistically vastly more probable.

An intelligent designer (natural or supernatural) could have simply organize amino acids in any order that he wants, and he could have chosen a life permitting pattern

Or to put it this way, if we both grant the existence of “Jesus-God” and the existence of the hypothetical cores mentioned in your paper, Jesus would be a better explanation for the origin of life, than “cores” agree?

 

[Rumraket]

Leroy, what is it about your religious faith that requires you to insist that God could not have created a universe where life can arise through it's created laws?

You believe God created the universe and fine-tuned it's laws to allow the existence of life, right? Could God have used those same laws to bring life about too? If not, why?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have quoted the paper several times in this forum; to be honest I don’t remember if I ever quoted directly to you. But that has a very simple solution, I can simply ask you directly, now that you know about the existence of that paper do you grant that the universe had a beginning?

If yes; then I apologize for wrongly accusing you

If no; then you would confirm my point “you are the one who would deny conclusions of a paper”

But deep inside we both know that you will not provide a direct yes or no answer

Again, provide a citation of where you cited that paper or apologize for lying. If you want an answer, you can always bring that paper up in one of the many threads you ran away from that cover that topic.

Again, I have provided that paper in many different threads, I personally don’t remember if you have ever interacted with it, If you affirm that you never noticed any of those posts and grant that the universe “probably” had a beginning I would take your word and apologize for my previous accusation.

I see my mistake. My original post should say, "provide a citation where you cited that paper to me or apologize for lying." Sorry about that, because I have no doubt that you have provided it to others. However, you claimed I denied it and I still see no evidence of me ever doing that. Kind of hard to deny something I never knew existed. Now cite, apologize, or run. Your move.

If you want an answer, you can always bring that paper up in one of the many threads you ran away from that cover that topic

We both know that you will not answer with a clear and unambiguous “yes” or “no” because once again you are cornered and any direct answer would have implications that you personally don’t like.
But you can always impress me and answer clearly and unambiguously if you grant that the universe had a beginning in any of the threads where I have provided the paper.

As I already said, bring that up in one of the many threads you abandoned about that topic, and I will be happy to answer it there, since it is off topic here, and we are on to many tangent already. Now, in this thread you can cite where you provided that paper to me before, apologise for lying about doing so, or keep running.

Peer reviewed science has shown that even if you model where true, the universe would still have a beginning,

The third (your model), although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15740&p=183925&hilit=third#p183925

Presented to AronRa, not me. Strike one.

but even if we grant that there was time before the big bang, there would still be many reasons to assume that time begun to exist anyway,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15387&p=180590&hilit=vilenkin#p180590

Presented to hackenslash, not me. Strike two.

this paper form Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin that concludes that eternal inflation could have not been past eternal, so even if Guth left the door open for the possibility of a beginningless universe, these 2 brilliant scientists closed that door.

Here we have addressed three scenarios(including eternal inflation) which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14780&p=182308&hilit=vilenkin#p182308

Presented to hackenslash again, not me. Strike three.

Now care to apologise after failing to show that I ever denied evidence or would you rather keep running? We both know what you will pick.

Wrong. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Again, you are saying the video is fake, thus you are denying it as evidence. There is really no way of getting out of this one dandan/leroy. You admitted in writing that you would say the video was fake. An honest person would just admit to their mistake, but we all know you are far from honest. You would rather accuse me of lying, even though I was correct in this case.

Why don’t you simply let this go and admit that you lied or even conserve some dignity and admit that you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

How exactly am I lying? I am the one that said you would deny evidence and than you turned around and said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." As anyone can plainly read, I was correct. How pathetic can one person get?

To put it this way, if you provide a video + an eye witness I would accept that as conclusive evidence that I urinated the car, but a single video by itself or a single eye witness by itsleve would only count as evidence (but not as conclusive evidence)

Right, like I said, you would deny the evidence. Again, how am I the one lying when you keep admitting that I was correct?

Or to put it this way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to say that I suffer from bad memories and that I urinated the car without remembering such an event, despite the fact that I usually don’t do that, seems to be an extraordinary claim and a single video does not seem to be sufficient evidence to account for such an extraordinary claim.

That is not an extraordinary claim. That claim is so mundane that if this were a court case, you would lose just based on that evidence alone.

……..you may agree or disagree with this criteria but it is still a fact that you lied because I never said that I will not accept the evidence just because it doesnt suit me.

Dandan/Leroy, when you say things like, "To put it this way, if you provide a video + an eye witness I would accept that as conclusive evidence that I urinated the car, but a single video by itself or a single eye witness by itsleve would only count as evidence (but not as conclusive evidence)". That means you are setting an unrealistically high demand for evidence on a mundane claim because it goes against you. That unrealistically high demand for evidence for such a mundane claim is an example of you denying evidence to suit you. Again, how pathetic can one person get?

Are you a ghost?

:lol:

Again, how pathetic can one person get?

Why don’t you address my point? If a single video should count as sufficient evidence for any event (as you seem to believe) does that mean that you believe in ghost? (Considering the fact that there are many videos recording supposed ghosts)

This is the difference between a mundane claim and an extraordinaire claim. A person pissing on a door at night is something that happens all the time. People waking up the next day and not remember what happened the night before is something that happens all the time. Thus, a video showing a person pissing on a door is enough evidence that if this were a court case, the person on the tape would lose the case.

We have no idea if ghosts are real, what ghosts are, how they work, or how they would manifest. We also have tons of evidence of people faking videos of ghosts. Thus, providing a tape of a ghost is evidence that can be dismissed for such an extraordinary claim. Evidence of ghosts would need to meet a much higher burden simply for the fact that we have never seen anything like that before.

Thus, the two examples are not equivalent in anyway, but is actually a great example of how extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, while mundane claims need mundane evidence. The same evidence for a mundane claim will not cut it for an extraordinary claim. Beyond that, it is quite telling how you are conflating the two to suit you.

That is because there are no good arguments for any of those. For example, if there were good ones for YEC, would you still be one right now and not a theistic evolutionist?

Therefore ether of all the hundreds of conversations that you have had, no theist in this forum has ever presented a good argument for theism nor a good argument against atheism or you are too arrogant to admit that there are at least some good arguments for theism and good arguments against atheism, I personally would go for the second alternative

I have no doubt that you would pick the second one, but you are a person that thinks logical fallacies are good arguments to make. Thus, who honestly cares what you think?

, if there were good ones for YEC, would you still be one right now and not a theistic evolutionist?

No even though I am not a YEC, nor an atheist, nor a socialist, nor a multiverse theorist, nor pro abortion, nor a bitcoin holder I do concede the fact that there are some good arguments for YEC, atheism, socialism, multiverse, pro abortion, pro bitcoin.

:lol:

Good arguments for YEC!

:lol:

Do you also think there are good arguments for the flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe?

:lol:

Granting that there are good arguments for YEC, does not necessarily imply that I most become one,

No, but it does show that your opinion of what a good argument is and is not should not be trusted.

Wrong. Mine is based on chemistry, something we both already know exists, whereas yours is based on magic, something that we have never observed


.

Again parsimony is only concern in the number of assumptions, (not in the quality of such assumptions) I am assuming that there is a designer capable of creating life, you are assuming that there is a real chemical law capable of creating life, we are making the same number of assumptions, in terms of parsimony is a draw

Even when you wrote the statement down, one can see that we are not making the same amount of assumptions. "... you are assuming that there is a real chemical law[sup]1[/sup] capable of creating life..." That is one assumption. Compared to, "... I am assuming that there is a designer[sup]1[/sup] capable of creating life[sup]2[/sup]..." That is two assumptions. First you are assuming a designer, than you are also assuming that this designer can create life. Thus, using parsimony, mine is superior.

That is a terrible analogy on your part.

My analogy was not mean to be related to parsimony, but anyway, why us that a terrible analogy?

These 2 sentences seem to be analogous (if not why not)

1 “We know that elephants exists, we know nothing about dark energy therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the expansion of the universe.

2 “We know that chemistry exists, we know nothing about “intelligent designers therefore chemistry is a better explanation for the origin of life than ID”

Where does the analogy fail?

An elephant is a small part of biology, whereas chemistry is a whole field of science. Do you honestly not see that?

leroy wrote:3 Explanatory Power: your model has weak explanatory power because even if true it would not explain how life came in to be, and it wouldn’t even solve the “entropy problem” your model if true would explain how complex compounds came from simpler units by a process of selection, but it would not explain how these units arrange in the particular order and pattern required to produce life.

your reply

Pretending you are right for a moment. your model also has no explanatory power. JesusDidIt is not an explanation, since that can be true for anything we see.

An “unknown natural cause” can also be used to explain anything we see, so you robjetion also applies to “natural abiogenesis”

Correct. It is a good thing that I am not using an unknown natural cause. I actually cited evidence that you agree with, not something completely unknown.

However it is still true that even if your model where 100% and even if you show that the simulations are representations of the real world it would still be true that you would not solve the “origin or life problem” or even the entropy problem,

:facepalm:

I still do not understand why you are talking about an entropy problem when you admit it is not a problem. Beyond that, of course we have not solved the origin of life problem. All anyone has ever said is that nature is a far better solution than magic.

Intelligent designers don’t care about entropy problems because fundamentally this is a “statistical problem” intelligent designers can willingly chose a specific pattern and order even if it is statistically unlikely.

Right, magic explains everything. The fact that you keep repeating this as if it is something special is telling.

Postulating the existence of an intelligent designer (ether natural or supernatural) that existed before life came to be in this planet, would fully solve the origin of life problem, while postulating the existence of your “abstact chemistry” would not solve the problem.

[sarcasm]Postulating the existence of fairies (ether natural or supernatural) that existed before life came to be in this planet, would fully solve the origin of life problem, while postulating the existence of your “abstact chemistry” would not solve the problem.[/sarcasm]

Right, magic can explain everything. To bad it has never been demonstrated.

Even if I grant the existence of those cores and I grant that there is competition and a bias in creating more complex “cores” that still wouldn’t explain why amino acids organize themselves in the specific order and pattern required to produce life, rather than “non life permitting pattern” which is statistically vastly more probable.

Right, that gap your Jesus exists in is shrinking.

Rumraket, is there a working hypothesis for why amino acids organize themselves in the pattern we see?

An intelligent designer (natural or supernatural) could have simply organize amino acids in any order that he wants, and he could have chosen a life permitting pattern

:facepalm:

Magic can do anything. Why you think this is a good argument worth repeating so much is beyond me.

Or to put it this way, if we both grant the existence of “Jesus-God” and the existence of the hypothetical cores mentioned in your paper, Jesus would be a better explanation for the origin of life, than “cores” agree?

:lol:

I love this, you are basically asking me to agree with a tautology. "If there is a magic sky fairy that can create life, than it is most likely what created life." Do you honestly think you are making a good argument? However, yes, I agree with this counter-factual. Just like if Darkseid existed, he would be the most powerful been in existence. Just like if vampires were real, silver and garlic would work to kill them.

:lol:

 

[leroy]

I see my mistake. My original post should say, "provide a citation where you cited that paper to me or apologize for lying." Sorry about that, because I have no doubt that you have provided it to others. However, you claimed I denied it and I still see no evidence of me ever doing that. Kind of hard to deny something I never knew existed. Now cite, apologize, or run. Your move.

Well it is ok to make mistakes, but in that case, my supposed strikes are not really strikes, because I did exactly what you asked for.


Sure I have no problem in apologizing, I thought I have quoted that paper to you at some poin tin the past, but I was wrong.
I also agree that an answer would be out of topic, so please answer in this thread,
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15387&p=185493#p185493

 

[leroy]

That is not an extraordinary claim. That claim is so mundane
l:

Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

 

[leroy]

Leroy, what is it about your religious faith that requires you to insist that God could not have created a universe where life can arise through it's created laws?

You believe God created the universe and fine-tuned it's laws to allow the existence of life, right? Could God have used those same laws to bring life about too? If not, why?

Of course God could have done that, and I would not have nay theological issues with that. But it seems that such natural laws were not created. Every single bit of data that we have suggests that natural abiogenesis is impossible, it seems as if God created natural mechanisms to make this as evidently true as it can possible be.

Honestly if you where God and you wanted to create a universe and laws, where it is evident for any observer that natural abiogenesis can´t happen, how would your universe be different from this universe?

 

[Rumraket]

Of course God could have done that, and I would not have nay theological issues with that. But it seems that such natural laws were not created. Every single bit of data that we have suggests that natural abiogenesis is impossible

What data is that?

Honestly if you where God and you wanted to create a universe and laws, where it is evident for any observer that natural abiogenesis can´t happen, how would your universe be different from this universe?

Literally everything would be different, as the impossibility of abiogenesis would require a total rewrite of the laws of physics. Nothing about the known laws of physics says abiogenesis is impossible. At worst, at worst, they would say it is a very unlikely event if we imagine abiogenesis to constitute a statistical fluke where everything required for a complex living cell came together in a single event.

But even such an event is not prohibited by physics. Even in the very worst case scenario (that everything had to happen at once in a single event), the laws of physics as we know them can only say that the origin of life is unlikely.

If you want to argue the origin of life is impossible, you're going to have to completely change the laws of physics. In a universe where all the laws of physics are different, nothing we see around us would be the way it is now.

To make the origin of life physically impossible, you would have to create laws of physics that are completely deterministic down to the subatomic level, and you'd have to set up the initial conditions such that all the future events were such that at no point in the future could the right kinds of things ever come together at the right time and place to result in a living entity.

But everything we know about physics tells us that it is entirely possible, through it might be unlikely, for the right kinds of things to come together in the right place and result in a living entity. Abiogenesis is strictly physically possible even in the worst chance-based scenario we can dream of.

 

[leroy]

Of course God could have done that, and I would not have nay theological issues with that. But it seems that such natural laws were not created. Every single bit of data that we have suggests that natural abiogenesis is impossible

What data is that?

Honestly if you where God and you wanted to create a universe and laws, where it is evident for any observer that natural abiogenesis can´t happen, how would your universe be different from this universe?

Literally everything would be different, as the impossibility of abiogenesis would require a total rewrite of the laws of physics. Nothing about the known laws of physics says abiogenesis is impossible. At worst, at worst, they would say it is a very unlikely event if we imagine abiogenesis to constitute a statistical fluke where everything required for a complex living cell came together in a single event.

But even such an event is not prohibited by physics. Even in the very worst case scenario (that everything had to happen at once in a single event), the laws of physics as we know them can only say that the origin of life is unlikely.

If you want to argue the origin of life is impossible, you're going to have to completely change the laws of physics. In a universe where all the laws of physics are different, nothing we see around us would be the way it is now.

To make the origin of life physically impossible, you would have to create laws of physics that are completely deterministic down to the subatomic level, and you'd have to set up the initial conditions such that all the future events were such that at no point in the future could the right kinds of things ever come together at the right time and place to result in a living entity.

But everything we know about physics tells us that it is entirely possible, through it might be unlikely, for the right kinds of things to come together in the right place and result in a living entity. Abiogenesis is strictly physically possible even in the worst chance-based scenario we can dream of.

To say that natural abiogénesis took place is like saying that a big ice cube, emerged from a pot of boiling water in your kitchen .

This event is not literally impossible, but it is safe to say that this event will never occur in the history of our planet. If this event ever occurs in your kitchen you can bet that an intelligent designer was involved.

 

[Rumraket]

To say that natural abiogénesis took place is like saying that a big ice cube, emerged from a pot of boiling water in your kitchen .

If we imagine everything had to come together at the same instant to make a modern cell, sure. But did life actually begin like that?

But even then, it is not impossible. So you were wrong, we have zero data that says abiogenesis is impossible even in the very worst case scenario.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway, so it is an irrelevancy. Literally nobody is seriously advancing the tornado-in-a-junkyard theory.

This event is not literally impossible, but it is safe to say that this event will never occur in the history of our planet. If this event ever occurs in your kitchen you can bet that an intelligent designer was involved.

I fail to see how an intelligent designer can make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I'm an intelligent designer, I can't make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I can think and wish as hard as I can, and I can move my arms, hands and legs, but I can't somehow stand next to the pot and force the molecules to assemble into ice through the power of my thoughts.

Yet that is essentially what you believe happened at the origin of life? Some kind of person that doesn't have a physical body, merely thought about it and then physical reality obeyed? What laws of physics govern such events, and what particle accelerator have discovered them?