Something people too often forget is that, when dealing with things like the origin of life, is that the conditions required for it to happen can be met an infinite number of times before everything works out juuust so that it takes hold. Who knows how often the first recognizable life began on earth before conditions allowed the little bugger to survive for more than a few seconds, minutes, days, eons, ect. But the pieces that make up the first life are never lost. They're still there. First rule; Matter(and energy) cannot be created or destroyed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
According to Some Folks, New Theory in Physics has "Creationists Terrified".
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
dust1n
Zindīq
Very late to this topic (and the original copy came out a year ago), but I love it. It's actually close to what I had imagined myself, as to the inevitability of organic compounds given certain conditions, but this thermodynamics theory that structure and replication is a more effective way of dissipating energy than a previous state is really interesting. The illustration given is so perfect.
If you had a block of carbon, some nitrogen and various other blocks of matter next to each other other the sun, it would absorb energy, at the same time, the object becomes hotter and dissipates heat. What's he is saying is that the same mass structure in a planet is more effectively dissipating this energy by channeling it into available chemical reactions, including that of RNA replication. In the same sense, he's using the basis of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) for complexity, like the way snowflakes form. The complex structuring of water molecules ends up expending more energy.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Also, in a world where there are trillions and trillions of these elements required in a "soup" (the despised word), there are trillions of chances each second. In a year, we have more than 30 million seconds, and after a million years... There are a lot of chances for a single time to just hit the sweet spot.
Sunstone,
The only thing about this supposedly new science myth is that, this kind of people are gobemuches, and are the very ones who will end up persecuting true Christians, just as Jesus warned, at John 16:1-4.
I really love a new theory that comes from Godless people who use the words, seems like, could be, maybe, apparently, and many other Weasel Words, that shows that they do not know what they are talking about.
The only thing that terrifies me about godless people, is the fact that they are the ones that Jesus warned about at John 16:1-4. These will persecute the true Christians who love God and believe His word, John 17:17, 1Pet 1:25.
As for life coming from non living matter, it is a concept that has been proven impossible, many, many times.
Allow me, Please, to remind you of a basic truth. The most complex of all non living substances, snow flakes and crystals, have a chasm between them and the most simple living organism, that is wider that the chasm between an amoeba and a fully matured human.
Think, for a moment, exactly what that means. That means that if you left an Amoeba in a Petrie dish, the chances are far greater that you would find a fully matured human sitting there the next morning, that you would finding an amoeba there in a Petrie dish, that you left, with a crystal in it.
The Bible says that the source of life is Jehovah God, Ps 36:9, Acts 17:22-31.
I have no confidence in anyone who denies basic laws of science, such as is done with the belief in The Big Bang Theory. The Basic Law in Physics is: explosions cause chaos, the larger the explosion the greater the chaos. How then could the supposed, greatest explosion in all history, cause The Cosmos, which is the ultimate in order and harmony, so much so that we set our clocks by it???
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Or, alternatively, are intellectually honest enough to be able to admit that they cannot assert certainty about something and are always able to admit to the possibility of being wrong. If they never used those words, and instead chose to use the words "definitely" or "undeniably" or "obviously", would you be more inclined to believe them? If yes, then you're foolishly gullible. If no, then what exactly is the problem with using those words?
Please give a single example of this. Because, believe it or not, every single living organism on the planet was, at some point in time, comprised of "non-living matter".
Argument from ignorance. Complexity does not imply design.
It doesn't even remotely mean that, and I'm pretty sure that's complete and total nonsense.
You do realize that the big bang wasn't a literal explosion, right? And you also realize that if you blow up an object and then leave it for a long time, the piece of that object will slowly change over time in accordance with the physical and biological processes going on around them, right?
You need to seriously rethink your perspective on this issue. Firstly, what exactly constitutes "order and harmony"? How do you measure it?
I wonder how anyone who believes today that the Universe is 6000 year old and evolution is false could be terrified by that.
Ciao
- viole
dust1n
Zindīq
[
First of all, gobemouches. Secondly, John 16:1-4 says those who persecute Christians will do so thinking they are in service of God. What about this indicates to you that this guy wishes to clear the synagogues in order to serve God?
Really? Where has that been proven?
Nothing about the ideas proposed in the article "means exactly that" not even for a moment. Nothing about the theories being discussed mean that an amoeba in a Petri dish will become a human the next morning. Nothing as such is suggested, nor is that the implication of anything suggested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
Speaking of Baslic Laws of Physics:
In thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, commonly understood as a measure of disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such a system will spontaneously proceed towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy. Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount. Since entropy is a state function, the change in the entropy of a system is the same for any process that goes from a given initial state to a given final state, whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However, irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment.
The change in entropy (ΔS) of a system was originally defined for athermodynamically reversible process as
where T is the absolute temperature of the system, dividing an incremental reversible transfer of heat into that system (dQ). (If heat is transferred out the sign would be reversed giving a decrease in entropy of the system.) The above definition is sometimes called the macroscopic definition of entropy because it can be used without regard to any microscopic description of the contents of a system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
My thoughts on the development of life have always been to look at everything else in the universe. We see an unimaginably large universe which consists of the same elements and same forces acting on those elements. This has resulted in the same processes and structures being formed countless times based on the predictable and consistent interaction of matter and energy. This being the case, the fact that life arose from these interactions here, it seems plausible that life is just another oft repeated development consistent with the structure of matter and energy in our universe. In other words, it's likely that life arising from chemical reactions, which came about from fundamental interactions of matter and energy, is somewhat inevitable given enough time and enough instances of a particular environment. This theory seems to fall in line with what has seemed intuitively correct to me for some time.
dust1n
Zindīq
Just to expand further on how, in fact, the universe is continuously becoming more in a state of disorder:
"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from certain rare interactions in particle physics; see below) that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, thesecond law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system can increase, but not decrease. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of distinguishing the past from the future. However in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy can decrease with time: many systems, including living systems, reduce local entropy at the expense of an environmental increase, resulting in a net increase in entropy. Examples of such systems and phenomena include the formation of typical crystals, the workings of a refrigerator and living organisms.
Entropy, like temperature, is an abstract concept, yet, like temperature, everyone has an intuitive sense of the effects of entropy. Watching a movie, it is usually easy to determine whether it is being run forward or in reverse. When run in reverse, broken glasses spontaneously reassemble, smoke goes down a chimney, wood "unburns", cooling the environment and ice "unmelts" warming the environment. No physical laws are broken in the reverse movie except thesecond law of thermodynamics, which reflects the time-asymmetry of entropy. An intuitive understanding of the irreversibility of certain physical phenomena (and subsequent creation of entropy) allows one to make this determination."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from certain rare interactions in particle physics; see below) that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, thesecond law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system can increase, but not decrease. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of distinguishing the past from the future. However in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy can decrease with time: many systems, including living systems, reduce local entropy at the expense of an environmental increase, resulting in a net increase in entropy. Examples of such systems and phenomena include the formation of typical crystals, the workings of a refrigerator and living organisms.
Entropy, like temperature, is an abstract concept, yet, like temperature, everyone has an intuitive sense of the effects of entropy. Watching a movie, it is usually easy to determine whether it is being run forward or in reverse. When run in reverse, broken glasses spontaneously reassemble, smoke goes down a chimney, wood "unburns", cooling the environment and ice "unmelts" warming the environment. No physical laws are broken in the reverse movie except thesecond law of thermodynamics, which reflects the time-asymmetry of entropy. An intuitive understanding of the irreversibility of certain physical phenomena (and subsequent creation of entropy) allows one to make this determination."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
No scientist ever said that a crystal could turn into an amoeba overnight or that an amoeba could turn into a human overnight, so what's this have to do with anything?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
It has to do with displaying a clear example of the fundamental problem of most people who don't "believe" in evolution or other scientific theories - that they simply have no accurate conceptual understanding of what exactly it is that they don't "believe."
I think it is more correct to say that the direction of time is defined by the direction of entropy increase. So, it is not entropy requiring it, but it is entropy defining it. In other words, to say that entropy increases towards the future is a tautology.
Ciao
- viole
dust1n
Zindīq
I'm not sure I'm catching the subtle difference.
Consider a not-oriented line (a line without a preferred direction).
I think there is a difference between defining an orientation on it (via process X) and requiring an orientation on it (in order for X to take place).
So, to be totally precise, what you require is not an orientation, but the quality of being orientable. Not all geometrical objects are orientable.
Ciao
- viole
dust1n
Zindīq
You're saying time moving is a function of increasing entropy? It's not that increasing entropy requires time moving forward, but that increasing entropy is time moving forward?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A true creationist would shrug his/her shoulders and assert that this is what the Bible said all along.
Elegant. Thanks.
gnostic
The Lost One
If you have bottle of water, and leave out too long, you're right, it would taste funny.
The reason why it would taste funny is because, if there was air in that bottle too, it would repeatedly cause water to evaporate and condensation would result. And be that bottle made of glass, plastic or any other materials, oxidation would result.
I am not great with chemistry (so anyone with better chemistry background can correct me if I am wrong), but I suspect that this water "taste funny" is the result of this oxidation, contaminating the water.
But if the water, air and material of the bottle have no carbon in their chemical compositions, I doubt life can result in that bottle, no matter how life shine on the bottle. Water itself cannot create life.
The bottle has carbon in it, which under certain condition begin to self replicate. Life, however, is not only the self replicating molecule.