No, metals turn into computers.Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
It's jars of peanut butter that become watches.
No, metals turn into computers.
It's jars of peanut butter that become watches.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Then the universe is not in fact cooling and expanding?
In any case, those who believe everything evolved from nothing really want to b e l i e v e it.
That's their belief system.
Last edited by Sebas. Melmoth; 08-29-2010 at 07:06 PM.
Oh, I'd go a step further and say we have faith in evolution.
I have to admit, it gets very hard at times.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
This is nonsense, Sebas.
1) This is a misrepresentation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While it is true that the net entropy of the universe is ever increasing, however looking specifically within a closed system this is clearly not the case. When you have an external energy source like the sun, the entropy on Earth can be decreased locally despite the fact that the universe as a whole is doomed to fall apart. Snowflakes form spontaneously, as do crystal formations. Complex organics within a reducing environment, with external energy sources, will form more complex molecules. This was proven experimentally through the Urey-Miller experiments to be possible with amino acids.
2) This is just an outright baseless claim. As mentioned before, snowflakes form complex unique structures spontaneously. Moreover, "information input" is an entirely meaningless construction of ID proponents that is ill-defined and essentially nonsense.
Edit: Also, this is addressing hypotheses of abiogenesis not evolution. The Theory of Evolution addresses how living things change over time, not where living things come from.
Last edited by OrphanPip; 08-30-2010 at 02:03 AM.
Right.
(Still waiting for that watch to evolve...)
If your mind is not too closed yet, you might want to read the following thread (it's less than one page) where the evidence for evolution as well as the terminology is addressed: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=54322
I think that it is fair enough to speak of life forming on earth from non-life.
But it is not like watchmaking. Stanley Lloyd Miller (a young student) was encouraged by a chemist (Harold Clayton Urey) to perform an experiment using a primordial atmosphere proposed by a Soviet biologist whose last name was Oparin. The supposed atmosphere consisted of ammonia, methane, and water vapor, and hydrogen.
He began with a sterile mixture of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen. He then used an electric discharge as an energy source, and that represented a tiny version of the sun.
He circulated the mixture past the discharge for a week and then analyzed it. The original mixture had turned pink on the first day, and by the end of the week one sixth of the methane with which Miller had started had been turned into more complex molecules. Among those molecules were glycine and alanine, the two simplest amino acids that occur in proteins.
In the years that followed that experiment, other experiments were conducted, with variations in starting materials and energy sources. Guess what???
More complicated molecules, sometimes identical to those to those in living tissue, and sometimes merely related to them were formed "spontaneously" in this manner , although calculations of the simplistic Lecomte du Nouy type would have given their formation nearly no chance whatsoever.
It is also impressive that all the changes produced in the lab ...BY CHANCE COLLISIONS OF MOLECULES...AND CHANCE ABSORPTIONS OF ENERGY... (guided always by the laws of nature) seemed to move in the direction of life ...as we know it now.
I don't.
Viruses & prions aren't "alive" by any yardstick, yet they replicate as though they were alive.
The problem is using anthropocentric terms in connection with different arrangements of matter.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Things fall apart; things do not fall together.
Things move from order to chaos; things do not move from chaos to order.
Order requires two things: energy and information.
Information requires intellingence.
Intelligence requires being.
Last edited by Sebas. Melmoth; 08-31-2010 at 07:27 AM.
Wherefrom does this synthesis come? Did you spin it? Was there a being or life before all else? Do mean a being means a living being? We cannot infer this, except by imagination
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
That's the point: Scientism is a belief system wherein scientists are the priests (wisdom givers) and the laboratory is the temple.
If humankind could find its own way via its science, how come in the 21st Century the world is in such a gawd-awful mess?--and certain to get worse?--indeed, devolving from civility into neoprimitivism?
Surely science will lead us...
Yeah, right.
Simple entropy law of thermodynamics: the energy of a body tends towards less; things fall apart; things move from order to chaos.
He was being sarcastic, presumably because after 13 pages of 'discussion' people still make claims about thermodynamics!
If you'd actually read the stuff that's presented to you, you'd change your mind or AT LEAST stop misrepresenting evolution in your arguments. Or just keep ignoring everything, your choice.
One more thing: If my own further comments here become increasingly cynical or sarcastic, blame human ignorance and indoctrination.
No, it is, at the moment, given the information that we possess, the most sensible system. Creationism and intelligent design, in the face of the fossile findings and the rather coherent theory of evolution, are not sensible.
One of the ways we can evaluate the progress of theories is by how they explain something with more clarity than their predecessors. Christianity doesn't explain dinossaurs or how human population came from a single pair of humans. Evolution explains more, so it's more reasonable and deserves more credit.
Until a better system comes along.
Do you have any idea how silly this argument is.
Have you ever boiled water, or heated anything. Clearly it is possible to raise the energy within a closed system with an external energy source. This is reflective of a seriously superficial understanding of thermodynamics.
Once again, you misunderstand how thermodynamics applies to events within a localized closed system.
The notion that order requires "information," which I would love to see a definition of, is particularly ridiculous.
This is a calcium phosphate crystal, they form spontaneously in alkaline urine, into elongated pyramid like ordered structures.
These are snowflakes, they also form spontaneously without "information," and are highly ordered structures.
Your assumptions are patently false.
Last edited by OrphanPip; 08-31-2010 at 12:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
