Did Nothing Create Everything?

exchemist said:
Sure there is bad science, and there are even hoaxes and frauds, from time to time in science. Science is a human enterprise and not immune from them. But science is usually quite fast at finding these cases out and eliminating them. That’s the beauty of demanding reproducible evidence. If people can’t reproduce the results, the findings get discarded after a while.
Click to expand...

And there is certainly bad, even corrupted and wicked religion. We all know that!!!
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
Yes, I agree.

Intelligently Designed systems of life can absolutely do that. That is one of the things that very clearly distinguishes them from all known random processes. Everything you just described, regarding life, requires the intelligent manipulation of elements to pull off and to maintain their continuing function and existence. It requires system, on top of system, on top of system, on top of system, on top of system, and on and on it goes, and where it ends nobody knows. These systems are interdependent and have to all work together, with no goal in mind at all. And they have to be constructed in the correct order every single time a cell is made. Or the interdependencies fail and the cell dies.

Why would a cell care if it lives or dies? Why would it even want to survive, it has no mind, or goals to win the Lottery or anything else? Just a stupid question.

So how exactly is any of this making your case stronger?
Click to expand...
No, the point is that thermodynamics does not prohibit the formation of highly ordered systems by natural means.

No need for design to do that, OK?

So we can forget thermodynamics, can’t we? If you think there is a problem with life specifically, it does not come from thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
We have been talking about one of them... that life can arise by purely natural processes. That is a hopeful theory with no strong empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
As usual, you pretend to know something and then pretend to get it backwards. Scientists document observed phenomena and describe what processes can account for those phenomena. The only aspect of this endeavour which requires theorizing is the unseen beginning of the process. All possibilities are considered and compared to available data. Those with the least factual support are discarded early; the remainder are carried forward and re-examined in the light of new evidence as it emerges. Thus, the relative plausibility of theories may change over time; those which are contradicted by emerging facts, or are unsupported by a preponderance of evidence, must be discarded along the way. No hope is involved. There is no prize, no victory in following a sound hypothesis - only a solid structure of knowledge.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
I either don’t know six, or I don’t want to chase that rabbit trail right now, or both.

We have been talking about one of them... that life can arise by purely natural processes. That is a “hopeful theory” with no strong empirical evidence.

Why is that theory so pervasive in the scientific community when there is so little evidence to support it, and when the math is so against it?

Isn’t it only because it supports the religion of Naturalism? It “has” to be true to keep the religion alive! To keep Atheism alive!
Click to expand...
Then why did you introduce this rabbit trail, if you can’t back it up? It would help if you could stick to the subject instead of throwing off side remarks that you can’t defend.
 
Jeeves said:
As usual, you pretend to know something and then pretend to get it backwards. Scientists document observed phenomena and describe what processes can account for those phenomena. The only aspect of this endeavour which requires theorizing is the unseen beginning of the process. All possibilities are considered and compared to available data. Those with the least factual support are discarded early; the remainder are carried forward and re-examined in the light of new evidence as it emerges. Thus, the relative plausibility of theories may change over time; those which are contradicted by emerging facts, or are unsupported by a preponderance of evidence, must be discarded along the way. No hope is involved. There is no prize, no victory in following a sound hypothesis - only a solid structure of knowledge.
Click to expand...

exchemist said:
No, the point is that thermodynamics does not prohibit the formation of highly ordered systems by natural means.

No need for design to do that, OK?

So we can forget thermodynamics, can’t we? If you think there is a problem with life specifically, it does not come from thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Entropy does prohibit the creation of life from non life because there are no natural processes that have both the ability to overcome entropy and also the ability to create life. If we are talking about purely natural processes that take place over millions of years, entropy would most likely be involved. That is why entropy is in the mix here.

If I am wrong, please tell me what natural process can do both?

I grow tired of asking this...
Where is the rebel base?
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
Entropy does prohibit the creation of life from non life because there are no natural processes that have both the ability to overcome entropy and also the ability to create life.
Click to expand...
Congratulations! You have irrefutably proven your non-existence.
Where is the rebel base?
Click to expand...
We are sworn to secrecy. You broke silence. Expect retribution.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Entropy does prohibit the creation of life from non life because there are no natural processes that have both the ability to overcome entropy and also the ability to create life. If we are talking about purely natural processes that take place over millions of years, entropy would most likely be involved. That is why entropy is in the mix here.

If I am wrong, please tell me what natural process can do both?

I grow tired of asking this...
Where is the rebel base?
Click to expand...
You have made this up.

I have taken you through the science of thermodynamics, but now you invent your own rules because you don’t like the answer. I repeat: there is nothing in thermodynamics that prevents local reduction of entropy and increase in order.
So thermodynamics emphatically does not rule out life arising naturally.

If you affect to think life cannot arise naturally, you cannot use a thermodynamic argument without looking foolish. You will need to base your argument on something else.

In fact, the big order-creating process is not the origin of life but the growth of any organism from its seed or egg. The amount of order in a single cell is multiplied millions of times during growth. This growth process is the big entropy reducing process. Whereas you are searching for some reason why a seed or egg, a single cell, cannot arise naturally. Thermodynamics doesn’t help you at all.
 
exchemist said:
Then why did you introduce this rabbit trail, if you can’t back it up? It would help if you could stick to the subject instead of throwing off side remarks that you can’t defend.
Click to expand...
Jeeves said:
Congratulations! You have irrefutably proven your non-existence.

We are sworn to secrecy. You broke silence. Expect retribution.
Click to expand...

You see Lord Vader, they can be reasonable!
 
exchemist said:
You have made this up.

I have taken you through the science of thermodynamics, but now you invent your own rules because you don’t like the answer. I repeat: there is nothing in thermodynamics that prevents local reduction of entropy and increase in order.
So thermodynamics emphatically does not rule out life arising naturally.

If you affect to think life cannot arise naturally, you cannot use a thermodynamic argument without looking foolish. You will need to base your argument on something else.

In fact, the big order-creating process is not the origin of life but the growth of any organism from its seed or egg. The amount of order in a single cell is multiplied millions of times during growth. This growth process is the big entropy reducing process. Whereas you are searching for some reason why a seed or egg, a single cell, cannot arise naturally. Thermodynamics doesn’t help you at all.
Click to expand...

I am thinking in terms of natural chemical processes before any seed or cell exists. Before the processes you are referring to in seeds and cells even exist.

Why are you bringing in seeds and cells as examples when neither of these would exist if there is no life anywhere on the Earth yet?

Where is the rebel base?
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Thank you for trying to help me Alex!
Click to expand...
You are welcome.
I have been worrying that I would come here today and find that I had changed your belief and thinking about it I really did not want to do that as you seem to enjoy believing that you have proved that a god exists and if that makes you happy why should I destroy your fantasy with facts.
It's been nice chatting with you may your life be pleasant and peaceful.
Alex
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
I am thinking in terms of natural chemical processes before any seed or cell exists. Before the processes you are referring to even exist.

Why are you bringing in seeds and cells as examples when neither of these would exist if there is no life anywhere on the Earth yet?
Click to expand...
Because you are talking about "order" and the "order" comes from the seeds/cells.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
You are welcome.
I have been worrying that I would come here today and find that I had changed your belief and thinking about it I really did not want to do that as you seem to enjoy believing that you have proved that a god exists and if that makes you happy why should I destroy your fantasy with facts.
It's been nice chatting with you may your life be pleasant and peaceful.
Alex
Click to expand...

You are a beautiful person Alex!
 
Seattle said:
Because you are talking about "order" and the "order" comes from the seeds/cells.
Click to expand...

Right, but before life exists all we have is unguided chemical reactions and lighting and volcanoes and sea vents and other unorganized stuff.

Doesn’t entropy affect all of these processes? None of them have the complexity or order of a seed or cell.

We are not assuming the conclusion, before it is proven, are we? Because that would have to be about the worst scientific theoretical approach ever conceived.

Abiogenesis has never been proven!

Or, am I Jar Jar Binks?
You know he was actually a Jedi!

Kinda hoping he doesn’t show up in Episode 9 as the ultimate dark lord baddie behind everything!!! They better not!!! Or I will be very upset with the universe!!! Or at least a tiny bit of it!!!
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
You are welcome.
I have been worrying that I would come here today and find that I had changed your belief and thinking about it I really did not want to do that as you seem to enjoy believing that you have proved that a god exists and if that makes you happy why should I destroy your fantasy with facts.
It's been nice chatting with you may your life be pleasant and peaceful.
Alex
Click to expand...

So Alex, you were asking me questions earlier, which I never answered or even tried to answer.

Do you want to pick one of your questions and get a crazy answer from me?

No guarantees, but maybe we can just have a little fun? What do you think?

I will start with a question for you...
What is Love, does it exist or is it only an illusion?
What would be necessary for Love to actually exist?

Back in your court Alex!
 
I’m not sure faith can be proven, it’s something that one may experience or feel on a personal, spiritual level. Science and spirituality don’t have to be at war; they can coexist.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think it is nice you take the time to post stuff that gives folk something to argue about and pass the time.
You remind me of a wonderful chap that was here a while back Jan. He would present as a theist and insist there was a god and he was so much fun because he was a total frustration in that he would avoid answering questions and while insisting there was a god never sort to offer any reason that was evidenced in any way. I believed he was an atheist who took on the persona of a theist to make them look stupid.
Both he and you do a great job by providing a little entertainment and to give scientific folk an outlet where they can vent , to some degree, their frustration with the sad human condition that requires most humans to believe in fairy tales rather than to believe in themselves.
I like to come here because it gives me something to do while I sit on the toilet or while I must rest my legs and need something to take my mind away from the torment of never ending pain.
What I am saying is you and Jan are sortta like god for some of us...we suspect that you are not real but we talk to you when in pain or perhaps sitting on the toilet.
I never expected you to answer my questions but you provide a platform where perhaps some poor brain washed human may stumble in read my questions and research to find truth and perhaps take on personal responsibility and indulge the benefits of knowledge science has delivered. And so each of us get something and folk like you and Jan should be paid by the site for the service you provide.
Have a nice day.
Alex
 
And you sort a question, which I suspect you will avoid, but remember I ask it so that some passer by will seek the answer...Do you know what a "scientific theory" means?
And perhaps in addition are you familiar with the philosophy of science as put forward by Karl Popper?
Keep up the good work please.
Now I really must go and do real things in the real world with or without god but certainly with much reliance on the knowledge provided by science...you should get a dog as you can talk to them when alone and perhaps get more feed back than god ever gives. I like dogs..hey dog is god god backwards...what does that tell you?

Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top