Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
76 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The first Universal Law of the Universe
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 13 of 39 (849575)
03-15-2019 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-16-2019 1:50 PM

RAZD writes:

Quarks entangled with one another give us electrons, protons, neutrons ...

... which entangled with one another gives us atoms ...

... which entangled with one another gives us molecules ...

... which entangled with one another create more and more complex pre-biotic and biotic molecules ...

... proteins ... amino acids ... RNA ... DNA ... life ...

Everything is in motion so entanglement is enabled, inevitable

RAZD I would say that the problem with this assertion is that with some of the things you say science can show them to be facts but other can't be shown. For example it is true atoms can entangle and it's true atoms can entangle to create simple molecules such as H20.

But when it comes to "pre-biotic"chemicals, can you show me one of those please? What is a pre-biotic chemical? Sure, you can show me a protein in life, you can show me H20, can you show me an pre-organic chemistry?

You can't because it doesn't exist. You claim it once did, and that is the flaw with your argument because there is no example outside of organic life, of something as complex as DNA coming about because it got entangled.

So there is a qualitative difference between the former examples you gave, and the latter.

It seems you are using HINDSIGHT to say that such entanglements occurred but you can't actually show these entanglements occur on the more sophisticated level.

Now personally this means that intellectually I am not obliged to see the claim as having any credence if ultimately it depends on accepting evolution by faith.

But if you can show me where amino acids randomly entangle themselves into homochiral polymers without any reason to do so, I sure would change my mind. Your problem is there is NOT-A-ONE example outside of it being programmed by life's design.

Conclusion: I have the same reason to believe metal entangled itself and became a car chassis, because like with the protein, there is NOT-A-ONE example of this, so if I were to treat the protein any differently I would be special-pleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2019 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 9:24 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2019 6:00 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 15 of 39 (849585)
03-15-2019 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
03-15-2019 9:24 AM

Tangle writes:

Sure, inorganic chemistry

Inorganic chemistry deals with the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds, which are the subjects of organic chemistry. Wikipedia

This seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch fallacy, you describe inorganic chemistry in the attempt to make it represent "pre-organic" chemistry.

Parsimoniously we can simply refer to it as inorganic chemistry. Yes, I concede inorganic chemistry exists. I concede organic chemistry exists. I want to see something inbetween such as the creation of a pre-cell or whatever.

There are no examples, just at there are no examples of DNA coming about by entanglement.

Or do you just want me to say, "Yes RAZD, I will accept everything you asserted because you wrote it down."

Wouldn't that be the same as accepting the assertion I am superman's son simply because someone states it?

Perhaps if it's an "evolutionists only" type topic, he meant the statement to be accepted as factual.

But I need personally, to see some facts that would indicate there is any truth to the statement. It seems to me, SOME of the statement is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 9:24 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 12:35 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2019 4:20 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 23 of 39 (849719)
03-19-2019 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
03-15-2019 6:00 PM

Hi RAZD, thanks for your response I always appreciate your posts being free of the usual rhetorica codswallop many anti-theists litter theirs with. Nice to just discuss it without it turning into a big personal war.

RAZD writes:

A chemical/molecule that is used to make/build biotic molecules, those necessary for life (amino acids for biotic chemical example).

The entanglement of these pre-existing pre-biotic into biotics means mixing in proximity to allow the further entanglements. Natural caldrons of puddles perhaps.

That would only create a racemic mixture of amino acids. Proteins are not merely amino acids.

Amino acids are used for organic chemistry but there are no examples to match your claim. There are only examples in nature of aminos being formed naturally. There isn't one example beyond perhaps a tetra-peptide, of any polymer coming about from an inorganic "entanglement" scenario, RAZD.

From: https://creation.com/...n-of-life-the-polymerization-problem

DR Sarfati Chemist PHD writes:

Organic chemists can certainly make polypeptides, using intelligent planning of a complex multi-stage synthesis, designed to prevent wrong reactions occurring.11 Living cells also use an elegant process to make polypeptides. This involves the use of enzymes to activate amino acids (and nucleotides) by combining them with the high-energy compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate), to overcome the energy barrier. Such high-energy compounds are not formed in prebiotic simulation experiments, and are very unstable......And even with these unrealistic conditions, 95% of the glycine remained unreacted, and the highest polymer formed was a tetrapeptide

(I recommend you read that article, you may be surprised by the standard, having only been led to believe creationists are creatards. You seem like a reasonable chap, give it a try my lad.)

I believe you're trying to blur the lines here a bit though perhaps not intentionally. The fact is there are no proteins or DNA found in inorganic chemistry and there isn't one example where entanglement of amino acids caused a protein to form.

RAZD writes:

The entanglement of these pre-existing pre-biotic into biotics means mixing in proximity to allow the further entanglements. Natural caldrons of puddles perhaps.

Yes, we have all heard the story of how it happened. "Perhaps" isn't the same as "fact". It is a fact we can get things like aminos and oxygen from entanglement of certain atoms, it is indeed only a, "perhaps", and this is essentially my point, if you read my original response; that there is a difference between some of these posited "entanglements".

But "further entanglements" won't produce a level of specified complexity. That is to say if you see the words, "hi" on a rock, it's true we expect a low level of specified complexity to perhaps be created naturally, some natural cause, but if you find, "mike was here" on a rock, ALREADY natural chance has been EXHAUSTED.

So then it seems obvious the cause for a polymer with a chain of some 100 homochiral aminos requires teleology.

I won't argue it here as such, but what I am saying is that these "entanglements" would be believed by evolutionists, by faith in natural chance.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2019 6:00 PM RAZD has seen this message

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 24 of 39 (849720)
03-19-2019 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
03-15-2019 10:45 AM

Re: pre biologic chemistry
Hi Ned. Long time no see. Always a reasonable chap that could discuss things maturely! Hope you are still enjoying your skiing. How about Mikaela Shiffrin eh? Cleaned up. You look a bit like Stenmark don't you?

NosyNed writes:

I am thinking you are both using pre organic to mean pre biologic. Organic chemistry is simply chemistry involving carbon

I think it's a lot more complex than this though Ned. The fact is, (since I was talking about facts in context of my original response to RAZD) that we only find things in life, such as DNA, protein, kinesin motors, etc...there is no sign that such design can come about naturally, indeed all the experiments render them, "ten miles off the target".

Fine if you want to believe it happened. But basically I am saying that RAZD's claim contains a mixture of known facts and speculation, so I can't accept the entanglement claim.

I believe we can create a FAIR disjunctive syllogism thus;

"It's either biological chemistry in the sense of life's unique properties, or it is non-biological chemistry".

I believe if we then say, "it is not biological chemistry" then it must be non-biological.

So perhaps I do use the term, "organic" ineptly. I'll leave the science to the more experienced guys like you. Fair enough, we can just call it bio or non-bio, I don't mind. All I am really claiming is that I don't see any factual basis to believe bio comes from non-bio.

Good to see you if I don't get back here.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 03-15-2019 10:45 AM NosyNed has taken no action

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 25 of 39 (849721)
03-19-2019 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
03-15-2019 4:20 PM

AZPaul3 writes:

Life is a most talented chemist. Far better than we, right now

That is precisely why deductive logic leads us to the notion that because "life" has no sentience, and the chemistry is more sophisticated than the human level, that the talent must be coming from a greater intelligence.

To say "life is a most talented chemist" is to commit anthropomorphism by giving chemistry features of a sentient agent. There are various types of fallacy for giving talents to things which don't exist as sentience, the pathetic fallacy, anthropopathism and anthropomorphism. So if you are trying to convince me that the Lord God is the designer, you are arguing a better case for that than I am.

AZpaul writes:

That sounds rather stupid. RAZD would expect critical feedback not idolization.

You guys did that already with that Bible/Quran thing of yours and look where that got you. Nothing but misery and blood ever since.

I mean dumb is dumb, Mike, but com’on.

I would advise you don’t do that anymore.

The only dumb thing I see is an association-fallacy you have committed. I don't idolize a book anyway, there you go again giving a book sentient properties. Rather obtuse of you. It is the Lord that I serve, and I do not spill blood or cause misery, which is nothing more than an association-fallacy. It would be about as smart as me arguing that you are german therefore in the 2nd world war caused blood and misery.

Instead of telling me what is dumb, how about coming up with something smart?

AZPaul writes:

And yet you accept the precepts of your faith on precisely that basis. Someone wrote it down in the blessed holy Pick-One book of religiosity so, by golly, it’s just gotta be true.

(Wait … creationist logic.)

So, hey, Mike, can you prove you are not superman’s son? Gotta be hard evidence. Something I can hold. And no missing links.

I like playing on your side of the street.

Well this is only a bare-assertion fallacy Paul. I don't accept the precepts of my faith because it was written down. Also I think it would be a false-comparison also, I don't think you can equate the bible with any statement just because you want to.

AZPoordebater writes:

Well, technically, he wasn’t all right, but the spirit parts, not all of which I will reject, was quite well done.

Doesn’t matter. Poor creationists are going to soon be looking for a new hidey hole to point to saying “he’s in there.”

I don't even know what this gibberish means, a lot between your ears I imagine, it seems tome your post had little value beyond having a pop at me. Your strawman version of what a creationist is and means and who I am and why I believe, I am afraid only exists in your brain.

So if your post was meant to have an antagonising effect, right now all I can say is, "I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect" - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2019 4:20 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 03-19-2019 9:19 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 26 of 39 (849723)
03-19-2019 9:04 AM

AZPaul I won't personally mention the things I have done as a Christian, but your associating me with the crusades or whatever it is, or priestophiles or whatever, has nothing to do with me, it is an association-fallacy.

Instead of saying what I have done as a Christian personally, all I will say is that there have been millions of people over the century, genuine Christians, who have given their lives for good work to please God. These actions don't support "bloodshed and misery".

However I will admit that those genuine Christians don't make the news at ten. Do you know why that is? Because quietly going about doing what Christ tells you to do isn't an exciting news-story. Each year just doing your own little thing faithfully is boring to the world.

To the world, one who SHOUTS "we are the Christians" then go on a crusade, yes - I admit they do make the news, however for that small portion that existed against all those that just go about doing what God has told them to do, they are the ones that get the publicity.

CONCLUSION: Your ignorance of what a true Christian is, isn't even your own fault, because the Godless world is only excited by sin, which is why only sin makes the news.

But if one starving baby is saved by God through me, then I have achieved a life's work.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AZPaul3, posted 03-19-2019 9:46 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 34 of 39 (850089)
03-31-2019 8:21 AM

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread and don't know how far behind I am, I just wanted to say something in this post, mainly for reading.

I have been thinking more about this issue of improbability for a cell constructing itself, the improbability of abiogenesis.

Because I don't think it is only a matter of improbability. RAZD and other may conjecture some imagined scenario by which a localised congregation of the correct parts may form a cell.

It SEEMS like only a matter of numbers but I don't think it is. So I would like to explain this more so please be patient and read my explanation to understand the philosophical point I am making;

With a solely improbable issue, a truly improbable issue say like winning the lottery, even though it's highly improbable a specific person we choose before the lottery draw, will win, it's improbable based on the available combinations of numbers, players etc. In other words, it's truly an improbable event because it can be made more probable for that person to win. So for example we could increase the chances of the person winning by having them play many more lines, or play all of the available lotteries each week or whatever. Or we may increase the chances of guessing someone's pin number by having 500 attempts rather than only one attempt. I am sure you see my point.

HOWEVER, there are some events which it seems to me we use the word, "improbable" for in a more colloquial sense. It seems there are events which are better described as UNREAL events simply because they are contrary to reality, in that we can't find any rational reasons why the event would occur.

So for example, (don't toy with the example, you can't tweak it) imagine there is a gentle man that exists, let's say he is a Buddhist monk or whatever, and is genuinely the least violent person or one of the least violent people to ever exist. Is it a matter of improbability for us to believe that one day he would decide just from whim to randomly chop to pieces all of his fellow monks?

IT MAY SEEM like an improbable event, but as with the lottery example, an improbable event can become more probable with available time and numbers yet with this example time and numbers will not change the unreality of the event. We innately know some things just don't happen. (you can't say he loses his sanity, remember you can't tweak the example, it is by his choice, by whim he one day decides to do it.)

RATIONALLY we can infer; "there's just no reason to believe it would happen, and it doesn't matter if we know of no examples because waiting for one example won't change the fact that under these parameters it will not occur."

In the same way we all know that none of us will ever march for rapist-day, to celebrate rape. It's not that it's improbable, because if we live for a billion years we know it's simply not in our nature to support such a notion.

CONCLUSION: We know that there are things which just don't happen. It may SEEM like you can say, "we just don't have enough examples", like when we look around and don't see proteins forming by chance outside of life. But in actual fact it has nothing to do with numbers, it's that there just aren't any realistic reasons for some things to occur even if they are technically possible.

It is technically possible we could replace the wheel with a cube-shaped wheel, have it wreck machines, then just replace the machine parts and wheels with new cubed wheels. But that it is technically possible doesn't give it any reason to ever happen.

Now you may protest, "but mike, we know that we have X number of possible amino arrangements, and if you increase the number, however improbable, you may get the correct arrangement."

Of course I am aware of that, but the question is, is it only a matter of numbers like the lottery?

If it is then it's the same for metal naturally creating a car chassis. You may say "there just needs to be enough metal on enough worlds, given enough time, for it to occur".

But the problem is there is no physical reason why it should occur, and coincidentally be perfect for a car's frame, as well as all the other parts coming together which are metal, and getting together locally.

Even if we assume some parts can occur, such as a protein and a DNA, nevertheless this doesn't give nature any reasons to continue the build, so to speak. There would be no goal for these parts in nature. The goal of life can only exist once life does, and to get to that stage there aren't any physical reasons why it would happen altogether at once, or stage by stage.

If it's stage by stage, why would nature collect the correct parts? If it's all in one well, that's basically impossible.

So we know that this, like with the gentle monk, has nothing to do with numbers, it's that there is something that would have to happen contrary to the facts. Just as our monk would never be violent, we know that even if there were a trillion worlds for a trillion years there are no reasons in nature to design something of immense sophistication.

Or are you saying you would believe a car chassis could come about, somehow given enough worlds simply because it's "possible" there may be physical forces that can for example, bore threads into the chassis, of the correct type, so that there are holes on the chassis, 175 holes, all with an 18mm thread and 50mm long?

Obviously the more sophisticated the design is, the more absurdly unrealistic the proposal. So then how sophisticated is a contraflow lung? How sophisticated is a human brain? How sophisticated are the designs in nature? Biomimetics has proven that there is always a design in nature better than our own in whatever area we look at.

CONCLUSION: Rationally, I can't see any reasons so suppose physics would not act as it usually does like the monk. If a protein was created, physics wouldn't single it out and wait for it to become part of a cell, all that would happen half way through the build is entropy. Entropy would break down anything that was built LONG BEFORE it was built.

Abiogenesis is an unreality even if it is technically possible. I am not saying it is possible, I am just saying that if it is technically possible evolutionists then infer that, "it is therefore improbable, and given enough time, eventually probable, and then certain."

I believe that is a false dichotomy. I don't believe that if something is not impossible that "therefore it is only a matter of improbability". I think there are unrealistic scenarios which have nothing to do with numbers. (the monk and the cube wheels).

God created life.

Edited by mike the wiz, : Edit to say. I am not saying this is the strongest argument I have ever made, but personally it's enough for me intellectually that I don't think there are any reasons for nature to act differently in regards to life. I think when we look at abiogenesis NOT happening anywhere, and even in experiments when they try to make it happen, this is because it is simply and UNREALITY. And scientifically if it is an unreality, then so is evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2019 9:12 AM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 03-31-2019 9:15 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022