Producing life from non living matter

[ChristineM]

It is irrelevant unless you c n prove what you said, and you can't




I don't understand the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics and since there id not 100% agreement if our system is closed or not, even some of the "exerts" don't understand it completely either.



No so. If you claim there was a BB you need to show where the matter originated that went bang and you need to show the origin of the energy that cause it.



What you needs to is show, scientifically of course, How a red shift HOW it and the other things you mentioned did cause it. To say the movement of colors is evidence of a BB is laughable. So is the claim that the universe is expanding. Since we have never see the edge of the universe, we have no idea if it is expanding. The movement of things in the universe many will have a better explanation and for all you know what we see is what "God originally created. Do you never think about what you accept by faith alone?

Now you made a statement so either prove it or retract it

I will prove what I said or retract it as soon as you prove what you said or retract it.[/QUOTE]


I can prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the H-theorem.

If has also been proven to 5 decimal places that the universe ias closed and infinite. Any disagreement is just has beens trying to keep a dead theory alive.

No you don't need to show where the matter originated, some theories do not require it, which funnily enough shows you are putting limits on the arguments just to define your own limited statement.

Why is it laughable? Because you don't want to understand how red shift can bed used to show that he universe is expanding, and hence was, in the past, smaller?

You don't need to see the edge to see that space is expanding, but please feel free to offer a scientifically valid explanation for god magic, you made the statement.. You know how this goes

 

[omega2xx]

No. We use the definitions understood and used by the experts in the fields being discussed

How convenient. If the accepted definition or a word doesn't' fit your theology, make one up that will. You can't be wrong with that method. Actually you can't be right with that method.

 

[omega2xx]

No its not.

Yes i t is.

Science is not beholden to parochial meanings of any day to day language, English or Chinese.

Why not?

All scientific terms are redefined to very precise meanings.

It is not honest to redefine words to fit you theology.

You can replace the word " organic compound" with the word carbon and hydrogen containing compounds in any scientific literature and it will mean the same thing. [

It will not means the same thing.

You can dodge and whine as much as you want, none of the reagents used to create the living cell that grew and replicated in the lab came from a previously living source, but all were artificially synthesized hydrocarbon compounds. Deal with it

I am not whining, I am pointing out your faulty way of defining words to fit you needs. If it was organic it had something elements of life, until you used you convenient definition of organic.

Furthermore, it is you who have deliberately taken the word "organic" out of context. I clearly said that the compounds were ordered from organic chemistry stores. The word organic chemistry is clearly defined in the dictionary as,

I didn't put it in context. I used your words in YOUR context.

organic chemistry - definition of organic chemistry in English | Oxford Dictionaries

organic chemistry


NOUN
mass noun

• The branch of chemistry that deals with carbon compounds (other than simple salts such as carbonates, oxides, and carbides).

Organic chemistry definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
noun
the branch of chemistry concerned with the compounds of carbon: originally confined to compounds produced by living organisms but now extended to include man-madesubstances based on carbon, such as plastics

It's an entire and highly well established branch of chemistry that makes everything from plastics to rubber.

Organic Chemistry - American Chemical Society

Organic chemistry is the study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation of carbon-containing compounds, which include not only hydrocarbons but also compounds with any number of other elements, including hydrogen (most compounds contain at least one carbon–hydrogen bond), nitrogen, oxygen, halogens, phosphorus, silicon, and sulfur. This branch of chemistry was originally limited to compounds produced by living organisms but has been broadened to include human-made substances such as plastics. The range of application of organic compounds is enormous and also includes, but is not limited to, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, food, explosives, paints, and cosmetics.

So it's you who is distorting the usage, not me. [/QUOTE]

I haven't changed the meaning of any word. I don't need to.

 

[omega2xx]

I will prove what I said or retract it as soon as you prove what you said or retract it.

I can prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the H-theorem.

No you can't. You can't prove if the sysem is open or closed.

If has also been proven to 5 decimal places that the universe ias closed and infinite. Any disagreement is just has beens trying to keep a dead theory alive.

You can't prove scientific theories with mathematic formulas.

No you don't need to show where the matter originated, some theories do not require it, which funnily enough shows you are putting limits on the arguments just to define your own limited statement.

You don't need to you can stay in scientific lala land with your guess work and never have any confidence in your myths.

Why is it laughable? Because you don't want to understand how red shift can bed used to show that he universe is expanding, and hence was, in the past, smaller?

Unless you have seen the edge of the universe, and we haven't and never will, you can't say the universe is expanding. Put some marbles in a big container with a lid. Shake it up. The objects moved but the container stayed teh same size.

]You don't need to see the edge to see that space is expanding, but please feel free to offer a scientifically valid explanation for god magic, you made the statement.. You know how this goes

Of course you do. If you can't see the edge, you have no way to know it is expanding. That's a nobriner. Please feel free to offer a scientifically valid explanation how you can know something is happening that you can't see.

It should be a requirement for graduation that all majoring in science take a few courses in elementary logic.

 

[sayak83]

Yes i t is.



Why not?



It is not honest to redefine words to fit you theology.



It will not means the same thing.




I am not whining, I am pointing out your faulty way of defining words to fit you needs. If it was organic it had something elements of life, until you used you convenient definition of organic.




I didn't put it in context. I used your words in YOUR context.

organic chemistry - definition of organic chemistry in English | Oxford Dictionaries

organic chemistry


NOUN
mass noun

• The branch of chemistry that deals with carbon compounds (other than simple salts such as carbonates, oxides, and carbides).

Organic chemistry definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
noun
the branch of chemistry concerned with the compounds of carbon: originally confined to compounds produced by living organisms but now extended to include man-madesubstances based on carbon, such as plastics

It's an entire and highly well established branch of chemistry that makes everything from plastics to rubber.

Organic Chemistry - American Chemical Society

Organic chemistry is the study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation of carbon-containing compounds, which include not only hydrocarbons but also compounds with any number of other elements, including hydrogen (most compounds contain at least one carbon–hydrogen bond), nitrogen, oxygen, halogens, phosphorus, silicon, and sulfur. This branch of chemistry was originally limited to compounds produced by living organisms but has been broadened to include human-made substances such as plastics. The range of application of organic compounds is enormous and also includes, but is not limited to, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, food, explosives, paints, and cosmetics.

So it's you who is distorting the usage, not me.

I haven't changed the meaning of any word. I don't need to.[/QUOTE]
So you accept the dictionary definition that organic chemistry is the chemistry of any carbon compound and not necessarily chemistry of life? That's what both the scientific and dictionary definition says as provided in my links.

If so do you accept the conclusions of the paper I quoted extensively that shows scientists have used artificially synthesized no living hydrocarbon compounds to create living cells. If you do not why not?

The reality uncovered by scientists is vastly different from the perceptions of reality that one gains from day to day experience of life, which turns out to be woefully incomplete and inaccurate. Since English or any ordinary language simply describes reality as observed in day to day life, it's meanings can't be transferred to science. Hence science has to redefine any and all terms so that they accurately reflect the truths of its discovery.

 

[FearGod]

Depends on your interpretation of nothing, nothing with dimensions or nothing without, both are accepted in science if states correctly

False vacuums occur billions ^ billions of times a second in the quantum domain, most are annihilated

Don't worry, Einstein couldn't understand the quantum domain either

Was there a space before the BB?

 

[omega2xx]

I haven't changed the meaning of any word. I don't need to.

So you accept the dictionary definition that organic chemistry is the chemistry of any carbon compound and not necessarily chemistry of life? That's what both the scientific and dictionary definition says as provided in my links.

If so do you accept the conclusions of the paper I quoted extensively that shows scientists have used artificially synthesized no living hydrocarbon compounds to create living cells. If you do not why not?

The reality uncovered by scientists is vastly different from the perceptions of reality that one gains from day to day experience of life, which turns out to be woefully incomplete and inaccurate. Since English or any ordinary language simply describes reality as observed in day to day life, it's meanings can't be transferred to science. Hence science has to redefine any and all terms so that they accurately reflect the truths of its discovery.[/QUOTE]

Time to end this discussion.

I accept very little of what you say, especially that nothing can be the source of something and that man has created life from lifeless elements. Both are scientifically impossible. If you believe that, it is not because of real evidence, but because you want it to be true.

Have a + day.

 

[sayak83]

Time to end this discussion.

I accept very little of what you say, especially that nothing can be the source of something and that man has created life from lifeless elements. Both are scientifically impossible. If you believe that, it is not because of real evidence, but because you want it to be true.

Have a + day.

Good to see that you have finally accepted that all evidence is against you and retreated to rank denialism. Deny away. Truth remains true no matter how much you put your head in the sand. Good bye.

Just to sum up Omega2xx went into a denial mode when faced with a scientific paper where a living cell that grew, metabolized and replicated was created from scratch using nonliving hydrocarbon compounds and reagents. Blind faith trumps reason and evidence for him.. again.

 

[sayak83]

Synthetic yeast cells about to happen in a few years. Scientists have manufactured six out of 13 of the yeast chromosomes artificially and will finish up synthetic yeast DNA next year. First synthetic eukaryotic organism will be a big step up in artificial life research.
Scientists Just Took a Big Step Towards Creating Artificial Life

 

[ChristineM]

No you can't. You can't prove if the sysem is open or closed.



You can't prove scientific theories with mathematic formulas.



You don't need to you can stay in scientific lala land with your guess work and never have any confidence in your myths.



Unless you have seen the edge of the universe, and we haven't and never will, you can't say the universe is expanding. Put some marbles in a big container with a lid. Shake it up. The objects moved but the container stayed teh same size.



Of course you do. If you can't see the edge, you have no way to know it is expanding. That's a nobriner. Please feel free to offer a scientifically valid explanation how you can know something is happening that you can't see.

It should be a requirement for graduation that all majoring in science take a few courses in elementary logic.

Yes i can but you deny it so provide evidence

Yes you can, without maths science would be just guess work

Your comprehension is not required

Ok, various measurements, as already shown, show the observable universe is expanding. It is safe to assume it is expanding into something otherwise, there would be an almighty pile up at 13.8 bilion years

Depends on the science discipline, much of cosmology considers event's before logic was valid.

In my opinion it should be requirement for graduation that all majoring in science take a few courses in the futility of god magic and the benefits of keeping an open mind

 

[ChristineM]

Was there a space before the BB?

If you know the answer to that (assuming you believe you do) then i suggest you contact the perimeter institute because they have the world's leading cosmologists working on exactly that problem.

 

[omega2xx]

Good to see that you have finally accepted that all evidence is against you and retreated to rank denialism. Deny away. Truth remains true no matter how much you put your head in the sand. Good bye.

It is sad that you are not able to recognize what is evidence and what is speculation. You are the one who can't provide one example of something the TOE has preached. I am not in denial mode, I am in what's the use of continuing mode.

Just to sum up Omega2xx went into a denial mode when faced with a scientific paper where a living cell that grew, metabolized and replicated was created from scratch using nonliving hydrocarbon compounds and reagents. Blind faith trumps reason and evidence for him.. again.

You are right I am in the denial mode. I deny you have produced any real scientific evidence to support what you say. I deny a land animal can evolve into a whale. I deny you can't logically validate anything you say. I deny the TOE is based on science. I deny that life can originate from death. I deny that nothing can be the source of something.

Mostly I deny that faith is necessary to show you your false doctrines. If you understood real science , you would know that like I do.

 

[FearGod]

If you know the answer to that (assuming you believe you do) then i suggest you contact the perimeter institute because they have the world's leading cosmologists working on exactly that problem.

No I don't know , actually it's the reason that I told you in my previous post that we know nothing
about what condition it was before the BB, the quantum domain doesn't give answers to
this mystery.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes i can but you deny it so provide evidence

Yes you can, without maths science would be just guess work

Your comprehension is not required

Ok, various measurements, as already shown, show the observable universe is expanding. It is safe to assume it is expanding into something otherwise, there would be an almighty pile up at 13.8 bilion years

Depends on the science discipline, much of cosmology considers event's before logic was valid.

In my opinion it should be requirement for graduation that all majoring in science take a few courses in the futility of god magic and the benefits of keeping an open mind

Why do you bring God into a science discussion? I haven't. All I need to refute evolution is real science.

 

[ChristineM]

Why do you bring God into a science discussion? I haven't. All I need to refute evolution is real science.

So use real science, genetics, archaeology, anthropology, biology etc as opposed to guesswork and god magic

 

[sayak83]

It is sad that you are not able to recognize what is evidence and what is speculation. You are the one who can't provide one example of something the TOE has preached. I am not in denial mode, I am in what's the use of continuing mode.



You are right I am in the denial mode. I deny you have produced any real scientific evidence to support what you say. I deny a land animal can evolve into a whale. I deny you can't logically validate anything you say. I deny the TOE is based on science. I deny that life can originate from death. I deny that nothing can be the source of something.

Mostly I deny that faith is necessary to show you your false doctrines. If you understood real science , you would know that like I do.

Real science has shown that all your beliefs above are false. Real science has shown that you are mistaken. But your delusion and blind faith prevents you from accepting reality. Keep holding onto the fantasies you crave. You have lost all arguments, you have no rational or evidentiary leg to stand on.

 

[FearGod]

Real science has shown that all your beliefs above are false. Real science has shown that you are mistaken. But your delusion and blind faith prevents you from accepting reality. Keep holding onto the fantasies you crave. You have lost all arguments, you have no rational or evidentiary leg to stand on.

How real science proves God is false?

 

[sayak83]

How real science proves God is false?

Which God?

If your belief in God requires that evolution and emergence of new species through evolution did not happen, then, yes, real science has shown that such an idea of God is false. Similarly for any God that requires young earth etc.

 

[ChristineM]

Which God?

I can argue that science shows all omnipotent gods to be impossible in this universe

And maths (statistics in particular) takes care of all.

 

[ChristineM]

How real science proves God is false?

E=MC2