exchemist
Veteran Member
Well, what you said suggested you didn't think energy was conserved, in the processes involving the sun and the biosphere. Whereas now you are talking about entropy changes.
-
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!
Discussing the Origin of Life
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes this sounds right to me. An organism is a more highly ordered thing that than the nutrients that went into it as it grew, so as the biosphere developed there was a decrease in entropy within it. However, this occurred at the expense of a greater increase in entropy in the environment, so there is no problem: overall, entropy still increased.
One way I like to think of it (and I don't know if a physicist would approve my logic - perhaps someone qualified will comment) is in terms of the basic definition of entropy S, in terms of energy Q and temperature T. A change in entropy, δS = δQ/T, implying that high temperature heat energy has lower entropy than the same amount of heat energy at a lower temperature.
The sun's surface is about 5000K, whereas living organisms emit waste heat from their metabolic activities at about 300K. So they take in low entropy heat energy from the sun (as light) at 5000K and give it up to the terrestrial environment (from where it gets ultimately radiated into space) as high entropy heat.
So, in the total process on the earth, the overall heat energy is conserved (the amount leaving is the same as the amount arriving - provided we neglect things like global warming) but the overall entropy is increasing, just as it should in line with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Within a growing organism, though, entropy is being lowered as simple, relatively disordered molecules are added to the highly ordered structures of the organism.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and yeah....I've done a thread about....it's alive
where to draw the line
you must have missed it
leroy
Well-Known Member
That is exactly my point, precisely because chemistry is well known observable and testable we can conclude with confidence that chemistry can’t create life form none life. With the same degree of confidence that we can say that Gold can’t be created from Lead + Some chemical reactions (as Alquimists use to claim) …. Based on what we know about chemistry life cant come from none life, we live our daily life under that assumption, scientists create technology under that assumption ……. So I ask once again what does it take to convince you that life cant come from none life through chemical reactions?
There is nothing unfamiliar with “intelligent designers” intelligent design is a well known cause. The only assumption that I am making is that there is/was an intelligent designer that existed before life on this planet…. (ether God or Alien) even assuming zero evidence, this assumption doesn’t seem to be very unlikely, there is nothing unlikely about the idea of an intelligence that existed 4.6B years ago (would you affirm otherwise?)
And which steps are these?
My claim is based on 3 points
1 based on what we know chemistry can’t create life
2 An intelligent designer if he existed could have created life (at least in theory)
3 The existence of an intelligent designer that predates life on this planet(ether God or Alien) it’s not very improbable
Which of these 3 points do you find so controversial and hard to accept?
---
For the purpuso of this thread I am defining life as any organic thing tha can replicate/reprouce
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
And yet you believe that non-living dust can magically transform into a living human adult male, Genesis 2:7?
Biochemistry is just more complex chemistry, but at the end of the day, it is still chemistry.
And every organic matters, including genes and cells, are made out of biological compounds and biological molecules, like proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, but when you look at what they are made of, by breaking them down further, they comprised of atoms, which by themselves are not biological at all.
Whenever we breathe, the intake of oxygen from the lungs, will carry the oxygen throughout all parts of body, through our bloodstreams, providing the functionality and energy required, before blood carry the by-waste products as carbon dioxide that our lungs blow out. The chemistry working together with biological matters.
For you to dismiss chemistry, in favour of magic in Genesis, just show out of touch you are with education and with natural realities.
It is hypocrisy and scientifically improbable to think that non-living dust can turn into a living human, that have no parents, no birth and no childhood. Instant human from dust, that can magically existed, simply because god gave dust the breathe of life. Genesis creation (and the faith in believe in the magic required to create life) is absurdity without understanding natural processes, in favours of superstition of woo.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I for one.....don't
evolution was Day Six
and God did it
Chapter Two notes a chosen specimen for a transformation
and God did it
gnostic
The Lost One
In another word - MAGIC.
There is nothing natural about "magic" or miracle that defies the natural law.
You cannot turn dust into man (Genesis) or clay into man (Qur'an), not without magic or sorcery. And magic or sorcery only exist in myths, fables and fiction, which would tell me that the Bible and the Qur'an - particularly the creation stories - are works of fiction or myth.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
nay
chemistry
God created the elements....with rules
it took a long time to form a man and woman
Day Six
the alteration was aimed at Adam
to alter the course of Man
rational experiences
Veteran Member
His story, means a human story. Which is not the story of creation, what a Sun does, as a physical presence or what space does.
Science knows that space had to be cold as a state first otherwise cooling could not be enacted for the removal of mass by consuming is a hot dense state constantly.
The story....humans. One male human parent and One human female parent. Adults the story about God and adults.
Said life is x 2 and one cannot produce 2. Yet in evolution of life by sexual procreation, one ovary changed by sperm produces 2.
Therefore humans were taught, we all came from the same 2 parents. For a human life is just one adult male and one adult female. Rationally. 2 of.
Then a male quotes God and infers in his male human scientific invention about maths, that God as per thought upon by his male self, the inventor science, had changed originally to create the presence of changed 2 by God conditions.
Said however in science by one, the male adult science inventor. It is why he pondered science by male terms and hence infers male terms to God. Yet God in science terms is not any male. It was the history stone planet, the history atmospheric alight gas spirit body. Science.
That discussion, and the invention of the statements in science do not own any relativity anywhere else. For humans are not anywhere else.
Mass. Water exists in mass. Humans come after water mass existed. Therefore we own no history owner of mass bodies historically.
Biology science in a human reference said you cannot put your thoughts back any further than an ape in bio life, for a human is not even present in that ape form.
Why science told science of the occult that it was a liar.
Humans today have to ask, do they believe what Jesus as a Healer said, Genesis and its loses, only stated as human DNA owned only by humans, or are you trying to infer the teachings of Genetics to be owned somewhere else? As no man is God.
The theme male thinking science of God said I changed the EVEN 12/12 balances and said it was EVE. Which meant that holy womb cold space changed into a radiated change of a SIN signal. And that signal also changed the human body life in the state of changed SIN or SINE frequency.
Therefore radiation changes by science in a cooled gas mass heavenly body alters frequency in radiation that then causes life to convert physically. The unnatural sacrifice of human DNA/genetics as said by the male scientific inventor of God terms.
His thinking put him into statements where his natural origin self body and thoughts never existed. How it was related.
Origin of life, our life came from 2 existing human being adult parents....and there is no information about where they came from in the Bible. Science is only discussed originally from one human being body, a male human.
Science knows that space had to be cold as a state first otherwise cooling could not be enacted for the removal of mass by consuming is a hot dense state constantly.
The story....humans. One male human parent and One human female parent. Adults the story about God and adults.
Said life is x 2 and one cannot produce 2. Yet in evolution of life by sexual procreation, one ovary changed by sperm produces 2.
Therefore humans were taught, we all came from the same 2 parents. For a human life is just one adult male and one adult female. Rationally. 2 of.
Then a male quotes God and infers in his male human scientific invention about maths, that God as per thought upon by his male self, the inventor science, had changed originally to create the presence of changed 2 by God conditions.
Said however in science by one, the male adult science inventor. It is why he pondered science by male terms and hence infers male terms to God. Yet God in science terms is not any male. It was the history stone planet, the history atmospheric alight gas spirit body. Science.
That discussion, and the invention of the statements in science do not own any relativity anywhere else. For humans are not anywhere else.
Mass. Water exists in mass. Humans come after water mass existed. Therefore we own no history owner of mass bodies historically.
Biology science in a human reference said you cannot put your thoughts back any further than an ape in bio life, for a human is not even present in that ape form.
Why science told science of the occult that it was a liar.
Humans today have to ask, do they believe what Jesus as a Healer said, Genesis and its loses, only stated as human DNA owned only by humans, or are you trying to infer the teachings of Genetics to be owned somewhere else? As no man is God.
The theme male thinking science of God said I changed the EVEN 12/12 balances and said it was EVE. Which meant that holy womb cold space changed into a radiated change of a SIN signal. And that signal also changed the human body life in the state of changed SIN or SINE frequency.
Therefore radiation changes by science in a cooled gas mass heavenly body alters frequency in radiation that then causes life to convert physically. The unnatural sacrifice of human DNA/genetics as said by the male scientific inventor of God terms.
His thinking put him into statements where his natural origin self body and thoughts never existed. How it was related.
Origin of life, our life came from 2 existing human being adult parents....and there is no information about where they came from in the Bible. Science is only discussed originally from one human being body, a male human.
Huh?! How did you come up with that conclusion?
Show your work.
No. If that were the case biologists and chemists wouldn't have come to that conclusion.
I realize you believe this, but your reasoning is wrong. You're spouting unfounded 'truisms'. You're beginning with a conclusion and looking for supporting evidence.
Your statement is precisely the opposite of reality. Biology and medicine create technology based on genetics and evolution. These assumptions underlie all of modern science and biotechnology.
So I ask you once again, what does it take to convince you that the magic you propose -- capricious, unexplainable, unreproducible, and non-predictive -- is an entirely useless and absurd proposition?
Real world intelligent designs originate with real intelligent designers we can see and talk to. Human designers use known, observable, reproducible mechanisms. Extending this engineering metaphor to nature is unevidenced and unnecessary, given the known mechanisms of unguided chemistry, physics and biology.
This assumption is very unlikely -- and an unnecessary deus ex machina. There is no reason to believe it, except that it conforms to a familiar mythology. Nor does it explain anything; it's just a claim of supernatural agency.
A claim that interdimentional mice created the universe has exactly the same amount of supporting evidence, and is equally unnecessary. All it lacks is familiarity and a supporting mythology to fit into.
We've gone over all this before. Google "chemical evolution," or "mechanisms of abiogenesis" if this is a serious question.
This is untrue. Scientists familiar with this issue assume precisely the opposite.
Not in theory, rather, in mythology. A theory requires supporting evidence and a reason to believe it's a viable possibility.
I could make the same claim for magical unicorns.
Yes, it is; just as interdimentional mice are. Probability is not the same as possibility, and possibility must be weighed by evidence, explanatory and predictive power, and need.
Well in that case we observe abiogenesis every day.
1. Why do you believe this?
2. How did God do this?
gnostic
The Lost One
Except that there is nothing natural about turning non-living dust into a living human. That certainly isn’t chemistry.
No matter how you slice it, the reality is that human cannot directly come from dust, because dust is only speck of non-living particles - dust are waste byproducts.
Dust can come from organic or inorganic sources, but once the organic sources (eg hair, human kin cells, etc) become dust, it will it will cease to have any functional organic traits, because the organic matters have been broken down.
For instances, when forensics work on any matters of organic matters found at crime scene, like, hair, skin cells, sweat, blood, urine, etc, these samples can still be used to obtain DNA, because the samples haven’t broken down and turned into dust. Dust is useless in acquiring DNA.
I know of no biological research where scientists can reconstitute dust back into organic molecules or compounds.
Genesis 2 is talking about one matter turning into something completely different. And that type of transformation can only happened in story, such as a myth or fairytale.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is all about chemistry, and chemical reactions.
You talk of chemistry, in one of your replies to Valjean:
I am afraid that neither you, nor leroy understand much about chemistry at all.
In the human body, we are made of both organic materials and inorganic materials.
The largest percentage of organic or biological molecules in the average human body, is about 20% of the mass, is proteins, with lipids (fat, like fatty acids, cholesterol, etc) make up 12% of the mass. Nucleic acids, like RNA 1%, DNA 0.1%.
But the largest percentage of mass is water at around 65%. But water is inorganic.
If you were to break everything down smaller than biomolecules, into all their respective elements, their a large percentages of each atoms, are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, with small amount of other elements.
By themselves, the elements of carbon atoms, don’t make organic matters. Oxygen by themselves don’t make organic matters.
The composition of biological molecules or matters are of combinations of these atoms, bonded in certain ways. Hence to understand about stuffs, like proteins, DNA, RNA, etc, you would need some knowledge about chemistry...but to be more precise, you would need to learn biochemistry and molecular biology.
It is still chemistry, but a lot more complicated than most.
Even at biological level, chemical reactions still occur, eg enzymes. Enzymes served as catalyst that can change one biological molecule into another molecule.
If you want to know more than you are better off asking someone with more background in biology.
leroy
Well-Known Member
We are dealing with chemestry, a well known and well studied field of science,
One can put a bunch of organinic molecules, mineras and water (simulating the primordial soup) and see what happens..... In this universe with our laws it happens to be the case that life doesn't pop in to existance as a consequence of chemical reactions..... This is something that can be observed directly with experiments
There are things that chemestry can do, and things that chemestry can't do, life happens to be one of the things that chemestry can't do.......... We even know why abiogebesis is chemically impossible, it is a matter of statistical mechanics and entropy, there are many possible combinations in which the building blucks can exist but only one of few would produce life, and chemestry doesn't have any bias towards life permitting patterns.
'.
I would say that you are the one who is starting with the conclusion....... You start with the conclusion of "nature did it"
If you start with "agnosticism" (perhaps there is a designer perhaps not..... There is a 50% 50% chance) I would say that I'd would be superior no naturalism with respect to the origin of life.... (if you disagree justify your disagreement)
Yes no body is talking about genetics nor evolution...... We are talking about abiogebesis....
Can you give a single example of technology that works under the assumption that natural abiogebesis is true?....
For example we desinfect rooms and trust canned products because we know that life can't appear without preexisting life..... So these are examples of science and technology that work because we assume that abiogebesis is impossible, this is what I meant when I said that science and technology work because we assume that abiogebesis is impossible.
So here is my argument please spot your specific points of disagreement
1 based on what we know chemestry can't create life, there are ststistical\entropy problems that prevents it
2 intelligent designers (natural or supernatural) can overcome statistical problems, for example an intelligent designer can organize 1000 dice such that they al are facing "6" (something that chemestry nor nature can do)
3 it is atleast possible that there was an intelligent designer (God or Alien) 4.6B years ago (before the origin of life)
So which of these 3 points do you find so controvertial? And hard to belive?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
we are here
evolution
exchemist
Veteran Member
No 1 is rubbish. There is no thermodynamic argument against abiogenesis. If there were, do you really suppose the physicists would not have pointed out the problem years ago? I can explain why it is rubbish in more detail, but I suspect you don't understand any thermodynamics, so there may be little point.
No 2 is an unnecessary hypothesis because (1) is rubbish - and there is no evidence for it.
No 3 is No 2 restated.
P.S. My discipline is spelled "chemistry", with an "i".
And such experiments have been done, reproducing different possible environments, Each generated organic molecules, components of life, self generating structures, &c. The experiments support the theory.
Just because a few early experiments didn't generate complex, living, reproducing life isn't evidence the theory's wrong.
The first experiments with heavier than air flight weren't totally successful, either.
This is an unsupported assertion, and evidence militates against it.
And yet no-one with relevant expertise shares this opinion.
Chemistry has no bias at all, yet it does what it does all unintended and undirected. The life permitting patterns are, themselves, self generating and self reproducing. The ones that aren't don't persist, they aren't selected for.
What alternative are you proposing: an unnecessary god, using magic, to poof life into being fully formed? And this you think is the more reasonable proposition?
I start with the testable observation that life exists where once it did not. I see two possible explanations: It occurred naturally, by ordinary forces like chemistry and physics, or it was seeded from elsewhere -- which only moves the venue.
Goddidit is not an explanation. It's an assertion of agency. The assumed "mechanism" must be magic, which has never been observed, is not possible under any theory, is unnecessary considering natural mechanisms, and is, thus, entirely unsupported.
You're asserting the latter is the more 'reasonable'.
Why? It's still an appeal to magic.
50% / 50% chance? How did you get that?
. Medical technology? Genetic technology?
No, they're examples of the correct belief that the conditions inside a can of peas is very unlikely to suddenly generate a race of pathogens evolved to infect humans.
We do not assume abiogenesis is impossible, only you and a few other religious magic-believers believe this -- and your belief is unsupported.
How does entropy prevent it? It seems unlikely, inasmuch as we can see it. Why do actual chemists and physicists, who understand entropy, not agree with you?
But natural selection does just that -- easily.
Eg: I take 1000 dice and roll them. Statistically, one in six will probably be sixes. I take these and set them aside, and roll the remaining ~834. I set the sixes aside again and repeat with ~695....
You see where this is going. It's only going to take a comparatively few generations to have all sixes.
That's why they call it natural selection.
* And equally possible that it was designed by interdimentional mice, or engineering-faeries. Why God?
* And this still doesn't explain the mechanisms involved. It posits only who, not how. So we're back to magic....
* 4.6B years ago the physics, chemistry, natural laws and constants were already in place. They didn't need the God to generate life at that point.
See above.
So why is a god needed?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief
Rogue Theologian
flip the coin
evolution is played by God.....for His entertainment
are you clowning around?
Now, now --you know perfectly well that natural selection is natural.