Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On May 14, 8:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1179049190.870630.14250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 13, 5:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > >> exams. > > > Must... resist... temptation... to... make... ad hominem. > > I don't see how you resisted. I couldn't have done it :-). I was going to say "Because you knew you couldn't possibly have passed without God's help." There. Now I must try to forgive myself for having bad thoughts. Martin Quote
Guest SeppoP Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5aor5qF2pjtdgU1@mid.individual.net>, SeppoP > <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1179042444.374902.200220@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 13, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1179027411.828594.125...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> >>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>>>>>>>> When Einstein >>>>>>>> Cite please. >>>>>>> Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken >>>>>>> Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the >>>>>>> quote from Einstein related to the watch. >>>>>> You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did >>>>>> not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was >>>>>> Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in >>>>>> God. In fact, it is not true. >>>>>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious >>>>>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not >>>>>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have >>>>>> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called >>>>>> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the >>>>>> world so far as our science can reveal it." >>>>>> Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human >>>>>> Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman >>>>> Yes, Kirk Cameron made that statement related to Einstein's watch. I hope >>>>> he did not make it up. >>>> Are you refering to the part of the debate where he said Einstein >>>> believed in god and the crowd groaned (possibly because Einstein >>>> himself had dismissed this as "a lie")? He told no such story about >>>> Einstein. The debate is still online. Perhaps you should take >>>> another look. I'll do likewise. >>>> >>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3160774 >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> He must have made the statement on Fox news while he was promoting the >>> debate. My memory is not perfect. I thought that he made it during the >>> debate while he was discussing Einstein. Thanks for the clarification. I >>> will see if he has a website. >>> jason >>> >>> >> Here's Kirk Cameron's understanding of science in 1m05s: >> >> < >> >> You are as dumb as Kirk Cameron... > > Hello, > When I opened my newsgroup reader, I noticed that there were 53 new > messages and it was my guess that most of them were responses to my recent > posts. I have decided to not reply to any more posts in this newsgroup. > The reason is simple. I have noticed that many (but not all) of the > members of this newsgroup have a prejudice aganist Christians and/or the > advocates of Creation Science. Gee! Prejudice against ignorance and dishonesty? How dastardly! <snip drooling> -- Seppo P. What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005) Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 13 Maj, 19:50, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > news:9hce43dbse7m4t8bajuncat5nenvcqekil@4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:03:18 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1305070103180...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>In article <1179034223.273130.45...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, George > >>Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> On May 13, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> > In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >>> > Martin > > >>> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > > On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> > > > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John > >>> > > > Popelish > > >>> > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > >>> > > > > Jason wrote: > >>I would prefer paradise than to burn in Hell. > > > But there is no evidence that either exist. There is also no evidence > > that the religion you teach will allow you to go to paradise. > > He doesn't care. > It doesn't matter to him. > All that matters is that he believes it, and he has been taught, or has > taught himself to believe it. And, of course, there is the fear of what will happen if one stops believing it. It is kind of like a small child hiding under his blanket from the monsters. What will happen if he takes the blanket off? The child's parents explain to him that the monsters are not real, but they also tell him that god and hell are real. > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) > B.A.A.W.A. > Convicted by Earthquack > "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long > enough"- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 13 Maj, 19:55, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1179077285.504028.178170@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 13 Maj, 10:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-1205072128500...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > ><snip> > > > > >> > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed > > > >> > to do. > > > >> > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God > > has free > > > >> > will. Neither God or people are robots. > > > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the > > > >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what > > > >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't > > > >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he > > > >> would > > > >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot > > > >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. > > > > >> Martin > > > > >Martin, > > > >God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions > > > >but > > > >that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the > > > >future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in > > > >the > > > >above post would not be a factor. > > > > If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. > > > Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to > > exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my > > opinion that God has absolute control over his powers.- Skjul tekst i > > anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 14 Maj, 07:16, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 14, 8:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1179049190.870630.14250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > On May 13, 5:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > > >> exams. > > > > Must... resist... temptation... to... make... ad hominem. > > > I don't see how you resisted. I couldn't have done it :-). > > I was going to say "Because you knew you couldn't possibly have passed > without God's help." There. Now I must try to forgive myself for > having bad thoughts. > > Martin If I understand it correctly, you will have to drink some blood first. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 13 May 2007 22:53:35 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1179122015.696508.43800@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >On 13 Maj, 19:50, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> >> news:9hce43dbse7m4t8bajuncat5nenvcqekil@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:03:18 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > <Jason-1305070103180...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>In article <1179034223.273130.45...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, George >> >>Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 13, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> > In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> >>> > Martin >> >> >>> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> > > On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> > > > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John >> >>> > > > Popelish >> >> >>> > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> >>> > > > > Jason wrote: >> >>I would prefer paradise than to burn in Hell. >> >> > But there is no evidence that either exist. There is also no evidence >> > that the religion you teach will allow you to go to paradise. >> >> He doesn't care. >> It doesn't matter to him. >> All that matters is that he believes it, and he has been taught, or has >> taught himself to believe it. > >And, of course, there is the fear of what will happen if one stops >believing it. It is kind of like a small child hiding under his >blanket from the monsters. What will happen if he takes the blanket >off? The child's parents explain to him that the monsters are not >real, but they also tell him that god and hell are real. A clear case of prosecutable child abuse. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 13 May 2007 23:04:31 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1179122671.804711.243740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >On 14 Maj, 07:16, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 14, 8:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:1179049190.870630.14250@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > On May 13, 5:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and >> > >> exams. >> >> > > Must... resist... temptation... to... make... ad hominem. >> >> > I don't see how you resisted. I couldn't have done it :-). >> >> I was going to say "Because you knew you couldn't possibly have passed >> without God's help." There. Now I must try to forgive myself for >> having bad thoughts. >> >> Martin > >If I understand it correctly, you will have to drink some blood first. And be a cannibal. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On 13 May 2007 22:57:45 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1179122265.561342.226340@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >On 13 Maj, 19:55, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1179077285.504028.178170@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On 13 Maj, 10:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-1205072128500...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > ><snip> >> >> > > >> > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed >> > > >> > to do. >> > > >> > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God >> > has free >> > > >> > will. Neither God or people are robots. >> >> > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the >> > > >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what >> > > >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't >> > > >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he >> > > >> would >> > > >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot >> > > >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. >> >> > > >> Martin >> >> > > >Martin, >> > > >God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions >> > > >but >> > > >that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the >> > > >future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in >> > > >the >> > > >above post would not be a factor. >> >> > > If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. >> >> > Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to >> > exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my >> > opinion that God has absolute control over his powers.- Skjul tekst i >> > anf Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > > I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that > rediculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics > class. And so you judge all of us based on this incident? Nice. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1205071330150001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5amg9cF2oe4edU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> snip >> >> > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator >> >> I could never worship a dictator. > > I could--if that dictator was God. I would never worship a human dictator. That's nice. > > Back in the old days, people worshipped Caesar. Whatever. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 Robibnikoff wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip >> I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that >> rediculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics >> class. > > And so you judge all of us based on this incident? Nice. He would do it no matter what. This is just an excuse for what he was taught to do. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1205071332050001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator >> > but >> > that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be >> > a >> > wonderful dictator. >> >> That is the fear talking. >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> demon, you got there. >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >> > I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> > trust God since God is perfect. >> (snip) >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. In your mythology. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. What "judgement day"? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. It's not evidence - It's just your myth. Do you actually believe everything in the bible is literally true? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > Not true-Many colleges have courses entitled, > The Bible as History So? Does this prove the world was created in 6 days? The first man was made from dirt and the first woman from his rib? Snakes can talk? Hardly. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 Jason <Jason@nospam.com> wrote: > > I understand. I once feared the same demon. > > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the people at whom the threat is directed have to believe it's real. Otherwise, you sound like a six year old telling his parents that the boogy man in the closet is gonna get them... Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1205072151570001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <19uc43t1tjum96v3h4168ked9tlo937q65@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:26:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> ><snip> >> > >> > >> >> >There is a big difference between believing that God created life >> >> >from >> >> >non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> >> >> >> So, why can't your God use evolution? Who are you to tell God how to >> >> do >> >> things? >> > >> >I am not telling God how to do things. The first chapters of the Bible >> >explain how God done things. He did not use evolution to create humans, >> >plants and animals. Evolution kicked in after the creation of life was >> >finished. >> >> Where in the bible does it say that? > The Bible does NOT say that evolution kicked in after the creation of life > was finished. I was the person that made that statement. And you think this based on what evidence? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip , > Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some Christians > do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about > everything they do. I don't believe that. I do believe that God listens to > our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > exams. Too lazy to study? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:48:18 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5arp77F2q7c4jU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >snip >, >> Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some Christians >> do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about >> everything they do. I don't believe that. I do believe that God listens to >> our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and >> exams. > >Too lazy to study? Too stupid to pass. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 08:47:39 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5ar430F2ptr47U1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >snip >> >> I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that >> rediculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics >> class. > >And so you judge all of us based on this incident? Nice. I'd say that the professor was quite correct to ridicule adult students for holding impossible infantile genocidal fantasies. He should have booted them out of college immediately. -- Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:5oda439l7lmgig5t0qo2phq3pponre1fqi@4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:27:22 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" > <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <rZ61i.3616$ya.3314@bignews8.bellsouth.net> > wrote: <snip> > >> Nope, it still fails. There is no thermodynamic argument against > >> life originating from non-life, none . > >> > >Trying to argue against this is impossible. It's trying to prove a > >negative. > > Not at all. I have provided a positive argument for you, all you have > to do is refute that argument. > Positive arguments? This is _not_ proof. Jews and Christian etc. can offer positive arguments for the existence of God, But arguments do not constitute proof that God actually exist and neither do positive arguments prove that inanimate matter can give rise spontaneously to living organisms. > > >The positive position is the proposition that life can or has > >originated spontaneously from inorganic matter. So the > >burden of responsibility is on those who advocate this. > > I have been quite clear here, I have even emphasized the key terms but > you have missed the point over and over. The question here was Kim's > argument and that argument was that thermodynamics refuted > evolution/abiogenesis. Get that? > Is this anger? I know he did and I disagreed with him on this. I've pointed out that change has changed over time. I accept this as fact, So, SloT does _cannot_ contravene evolution. This is not an issue. It's that I have yet to come to a conclusions as to how life arose. In fact, most of my quandary is not about evolution so much as it is about abiogenesis. Not you, but most responders seem to take a defensive position, many are wrong, but very insulting. I no longer respond to insults And certain individuals, insults is their only "argument". So, these people I just ignore. > The question here is not how life originated but whether or not > thermodynamics shows that there is no > possible natural path. I have given a positive argument refuted his > claim. If you wish to change the subject to a question of how life > originated then make that clear. If you don't and keep ignoring what I > do say I will assume it is deliberate. > I guess this is where my problem comes down. I know if a coffee cup falls from the floor and shatters chaotically, the second law says left to it's own it cannot reassemble. But it can be manually: however, for this to happen, there are three factors are required. 1. energy 2. work 3. intelligence 4. retainer (something to hold the pieces together as they are assembled) This would also apply to a house. Energy alone will not take brick, lumber, nails etc and build a house. IE a tornado (energy) can never build a house, it violates the 2.nd law to do so and because of the absence of at least one of the above factors. So, at the formation of the planet 4.5 billion years ago, the earth was chaotic. What I do not understand is how highly organized life could have arose from chaotic conditions and not be a violation of the 2.nd law. One would think in view of the fact that the 2.nd law is in effect in both "open" and "closed" systems no amount of free energy can cause the coffee cup to reassemble without all four of the factors I listed above. To reassemble or bring complex organisms into existence from chatioic elements requires all four of these factors. (otherwise the 2.nd law is violated.) > > >> Let me give a quick (and therefore, of course, inaccurate, but good > >> enough for us now) summary of thermo. Thermodynamics is a question of > >> states, we compare two states of a system. In a simple case we take > >> some system at time T1 and the same system at time T2. We look at the > >> entropy of the system at S(T1) and S(T2) and determine if S(T2) is > >> reachable from S(T1) or, alternatively, we determine the necessary > >> inputs that are the minimum necessary to go from S(T1) to S(T2). > >> Nothing about mechanism, nothing about planning, just about energy > >> states. So the thermodynamic issue involving the origin of life is > >> simply if there is enough free energy on Earth to go from lifeless > >> stuff to life. And the answer, pretty bloody obviously, is of course > >> there is. Life may be slightly more ordered than non-life, but there > >> is plenty of free energy (aka high temp sunlight) to get it there. > >> > >Okay, but the SloT not withstanding, > > Sorry, but the 2LoT is the issue here. We can go on to other topics > only after we have dealt with this. > > >it's counterintuitive to think > >that energy alone acting upon chaotic matter is sufficient to drive > >forces to create _high_ multiple orders of complexity. > > I don't much care what is intuitive, there is lots about the world > that is not intuitive, particularly for those who are not familiar > with the material. And the phrase "energy alone" does not make > sense. > This is what is meant by energy alone. It's the total amount of energy in a physical system which could be converted to work. It's the same as the thermodynamic term "free energy". Energy alone means an unguided, undirected force. Solar energy on the moon. I am in reference to energy that is undirected, unguided etc. A raging bull in a china shop is energy which leads to chaotic destruction. Two days later the china shop is restored to it's original condition, both instances the is work done by energy. What is the difference here? Both instances there is energy which is converted to do work. One destructive one constructive. Other examples: A sand castle is built on the beach at low tide. Later at high tide waves strikes the sand castle. In both cases energy is converted to do work. But there is a difference. Solar energy on the earth at 4.5 billion years ago. > > I am discussing energy/entropy here because that is the topic. We can > discuss chemistry if you wish, but there is no point to going to that > step until this has been cleared up. > > >Each of > >which is interdependent and predicated upon other levels of > >complexity. > > Complexity is one of those terms that makes intuitive sense until > you actually look at it. When you do look you will find that lots of > your intuitive ideas are flat out wrong. I can point you to several > books on the topic if you are interested. > True the sun circling the sun seems counter intuitive from observation. > <snip> > >> >Certain words are anathema to scientific naturalism such as: planned, > >> >purpose, design and direction. > >> > >> I wonder why you use "anathema" here. > >> > >I just liked the sound of it. Maybe it was a little over the top. (: / > >> <snip> > >> > >It difficult to think of the genetic code in terms as not > >having purpose and whose design is for encoding instructions > >aimed at for fashioning the bodies and functions of descendant > >organisms. Another would be the heart. It has purpose. It's > >purpose is for pumping blood throughout at living body. It's > >designed to accomplish this function. > > Sounds like you are not the "evolutionist" you claimed to be. > I know change occurs over time. Look at dogs, all breeds are descendant from wolves. If a great dane and a poodle can have the same ancestry, so it's no great stretch to accept that all living organisms have common ancestry. I do not question this fact. > When you > start to look at biology you will find that things are stranger than > you imagine. It only looks like human designed things (and humans are > our only actual known example of designers) > Maybe not, insects, one animals design. a birds nest, for example. > >> because human design uses > evolution. I can discuss this at any length you want, but I first want > to deal with the other issues. Digression is not our friend here. > <snip> > > >>> >> > >> Remember, the issue here is thermodynamics and nothing else. If > >> someone has a non-thermo objection to natural biogenesis they should > >> make it. We absolutely know that thermodynamically there is no > >> problem about life forming from non-life. It is really very simple: > >> take a bunch of life and calculate the entropy. Take the same amount > >> of stuff and calculate the entropy. Now figure out the free energy > >> needed to go from one state to the other and see if that energy is > >> available. It is, so there is no problem. Really, from the thermo > >> perspective, and that is the only one relevant to this argument, there > >> is no problem. > >> > >There is entirely too many unknowns to do this. > > Not at all. One more time: all that matters from a thermodynamic > perspective is the initial state and the end state. That is it, you > don't need to know a thing about intermediary states, but processes, > about time. All that matters is whether or not the initial state can > go to the final state. > Ok, but what about even one state, I.e. from chaos to a single cell organism. I can accept that once a single organism appears, it's not difficult to understand how evolution happens. > There are plenty of things that could happen > thermodynamically that don't happen to occur. And if you don't > understand or accept this then you need to re-study your thermo, this > is basic stuff. So the thermo question is whether or not there is > sufficient free energy on Earth to take non-living stuff and make it > living. And that is rather trivially obviously so: the energy inputs > from the Sun are sufficient for living things to make living stuff > from non-living stuff. That observation shows that there is no > thermodynamic problem, none. > Agreed. Thermo knows nothing about DNA which is the instructions for converting energy to useful work, but not without DNA. What happens to a cell if the DNA is removed in a science lab? >> > >> To put this another way: we see life around us so we know that life is > >> thermodynamically allowed on Earth. That is actually sufficient to > >> refute this creationist claim. > >> > >Obviously, otherwise we would be here to discuss the matter. > > That is true but irrelevant. I am not playing anthropic principle > games, I am just discussing thermo. > > >> >Amino acids and other molecules can form spontaneously under > >> >certain conditions, but this is not organisms which can undergo > >> >metabolization and reproduction. A template (rna/dna) is needed in > >> >order for this to occur. > >> > >> Please find me something in thermodynamics about templates. You > >> can't because there isn't. Thermo is not about the mechanisms needed > >> to do something, it is about the energy needed between one state and > >> another. > >> > >It may be extra thermodynamic. A cup falls off a table and shatters > >there is > > You did not finish, but I can guess your point. And I will repeat: I > am not doing anything here but refuting Kim's claim. > Until I read Kims post, I do not recall ever reading or even thinking about thermodynamics as it applies to living organisms. I understood how it applied to inorganic matter, but not life. I have Kim to thank(?) for my sudden occupation with this. (Well, I am > trying to show that it is not simply wrong, it is totally and > completely wrong.) We can go on to other questions about abiogenesis > or evolution only after we have dealt with this. > > > >> >I agree, but a storm is hardly a highly complex edifice on the orders > >> >of magnitude of even the simplest single cell organism. > >> > >> Really? Thermodynamically a hurricane has far more "order" than a > >> whole hell of a lot of living creatures. A hurricane is a very highly > >> ordered complex thing. Ever look at the amount of energy required to > >> keep a hurricane going? It is amazing. > >> <snip> > -- > Matt Silberstein > > Do something today about the Darfur Genocide > > http://www.beawitness.org > http://www.darfurgenocide.org > http://www.savedarfur.org > > "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:48:35 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <h232i.1043$XD3.22@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >message news:5oda439l7lmgig5t0qo2phq3pponre1fqi@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:27:22 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <rZ61i.3616$ya.3314@bignews8.bellsouth.net> >> wrote: ><snip> >> >> Nope, it still fails. There is no thermodynamic argument against >> >> life originating from non-life, none . >> >> >> >Trying to argue against this is impossible. It's trying to prove a >> >negative. >> >> Not at all. I have provided a positive argument for you, all you have >> to do is refute that argument. >> >Positive arguments? This is _not_ proof. SFW? First, science dies not deal in proof. Second, you just complained about proving a negative. That is an irrelevant complaint since I have not offered that, I offered a positive argument. >Jews and Christian etc. >can offer positive arguments for the existence of God, They may well do that, how is that relevant? If we were discussing the existence of God and someone offered a positive proof for God's existence I could probably show that either the argument was invalid, that the assumptions were not founded, or the conclusion was not significant. If you have some counter to my argument, present it. Not some hand wave, but a counter argument. >But >arguments do not constitute proof that God actually exist >and neither do positive arguments prove that inanimate matter >can give rise spontaneously to living organisms. One more time, and then I will know that you are being dishonest, I am not arguing that inanimate matter can "spontaneously" lead to life, I am refuting the thermodynamic argument Kim presented. Do you get that yet? The issue here is whether or not thermodynamics refutes either evolution or abiogenesis and the answer is that it does not. You can try as hard as you want to obscure that issue, it won't work with me. >> >The positive position is the proposition that life can or has >> >originated spontaneously from inorganic matter. So the >> >burden of responsibility is on those who advocate this. >> >> I have been quite clear here, I have even emphasized the key terms but >> you have missed the point over and over. The question here was Kim's >> argument and that argument was that thermodynamics refuted >> evolution/abiogenesis. Get that? >> >Is this anger? It is frustration with someone who repeatedly ignores what I write. It is a growing suspicion that I have been deceived by someone. >I know he did and I disagreed with him on this. I've >pointed out that change has changed over time. I accept this as fact, >So, SloT does _cannot_ contravene evolution. This is not an issue. Yes, it was. You wrote: "Ok, but I'm still uneasy about Kim's argument about energy from the sun (open system) needing conversion to be useful." And "I know that the 2nd law is absolute fact. But his arguments did make sense to me. " Ok? So you have, in fact, suggested that you saw value in the thermodynamic argument. You have complained that, referring to Kim's argument: "I did not see anyone actually rebut him." So I have shown you my arguments to rebut him and at no point have you said that you accepted my argument. Instead you have changed the subject and such. >It's that I have yet to come to a conclusions as to how life arose. >In fact, most of my quandary is not about evolution so much as >it is about abiogenesis. >Not you, but most responders seem to take a defensive position, >many are wrong, but very insulting. I no longer respond to insults >And certain individuals, insults is their only "argument". So, these >people I just ignore. Some people jump faster than I do. >The question here is not how life originated but whether or not >> thermodynamics shows that there is no >> possible natural path. I have given a positive argument refuted his >> claim. If you wish to change the subject to a question of how life >> originated then make that clear. If you don't and keep ignoring what I >> do say I will assume it is deliberate. >> >I guess this is where my problem comes down. I know if a coffee >cup falls from the floor and shatters chaotically, the second law >says left to it's own it cannot reassemble. That actually is not what the 2LoT says. And the "left to itself" explicitly rules out the necessary-for-life energy input from the Sun. Remember that we do know that life does form from non-like (metabolism) via thermodynamically acceptable steps. There is nothing in the laws of thermo about mechanisms or templates, nothing . >But it can be manually: >however, for this to happen, there are three factors are required. > >1. energy Available from the Sun. >2. work Do you mean the mechanics notion of work or some vague fuzzy notion of your own? >3. intelligence Sorry, but there is no way we know of for "intelligence" to contravene the laws of thermo. Everything done by intelligent agents is thermodynamically favored. >4. retainer (something to hold the pieces together as they are > assembled) >This would also apply to a house. Energy alone will not take >brick, lumber, nails etc and build a house. IE a tornado (energy) >can never build a house, it violates the 2.nd law to do so and >because of the absence of at least one of the above factors. None of those factors can enable a violation of the laws of thermo. Until you grasp that you will be lost here. Also remember that energy can create order: heat from the Sun enables hurricanes. Now you may not find them important, but from the thermodynamic POV they have far more order than the weather without such storms. And far more order than necessary to create life. >So, >at the formation of the planet 4.5 billion years ago, the earth >was chaotic. For what meaning of chaotic? Again, the mathematical one or some personal vague concept. From a thermodynamic standpoint the system was more ordered, not less. Again, this is rather critical for you to grasp. There was more order in the solar system 4 billion years ago, not less. >What I do not understand is how highly organized >life could have arose from chaotic conditions and not be a >violation of the 2.nd law. Because there has been a loss of organization elsewhere. (In the Sun, actually.) >One would think in view of the fact that the 2.nd law is in effect >in both "open" and "closed" systems no amount of free energy >can cause the coffee cup to reassemble without all four of the >factors I listed above. But there is enough free energy to enable life to reproduce. So we know that life can work and so, thermodynamically, there is no abiogenesis problem. There is a chemical problem: what is the path involved. But there is not thermodynamic problem (since thermo is path independent, it cares only about end states). >To reassemble or bring complex organisms >into existence from chatioic elements requires all four of these >factors. (otherwise the 2.nd law is violated.) Excepting that none of those factors can violate the 2LoT. >> >> Let me give a quick (and therefore, of course, inaccurate, but good >> >> enough for us now) summary of thermo. Thermodynamics is a question of >> >> states, we compare two states of a system. In a simple case we take >> >> some system at time T1 and the same system at time T2. We look at the >> >> entropy of the system at S(T1) and S(T2) and determine if S(T2) is >> >> reachable from S(T1) or, alternatively, we determine the necessary >> >> inputs that are the minimum necessary to go from S(T1) to S(T2). >> >> Nothing about mechanism, nothing about planning, just about energy >> >> states. So the thermodynamic issue involving the origin of life is >> >> simply if there is enough free energy on Earth to go from lifeless >> >> stuff to life. And the answer, pretty bloody obviously, is of course >> >> there is. Life may be slightly more ordered than non-life, but there >> >> is plenty of free energy (aka high temp sunlight) to get it there. >> >> >> >Okay, but the SloT not withstanding, >> >> Sorry, but the 2LoT is the issue here. We can go on to other topics >> only after we have dealt with this. >> >> >it's counterintuitive to think >> >that energy alone acting upon chaotic matter is sufficient to drive >> >forces to create _high_ multiple orders of complexity. >> >> I don't much care what is intuitive, there is lots about the world >> that is not intuitive, particularly for those who are not familiar >> with the material. And the phrase "energy alone" does not make >> sense. >> >This is what is meant by energy alone. It's the total amount of energy >in a physical system which could be converted to work. It's the >same as the thermodynamic term "free energy". Well, then, energy alone can do these impressive things. Do you think there is some hidden vital fluid enabling life? >Energy alone means an unguided, undirected force. Solar energy >on the moon. I am in reference to energy that is undirected, unguided >etc. A raging bull in a china shop is energy which leads to >chaotic destruction. Two days later the china shop is restored to it's >original condition, both instances the is work done by energy. And the total system now has more entropy. >What is the difference here? Humans care more about unbroken china. >Both instances there is energy which >is converted to do work. One destructive one constructive. >Other examples: A sand castle is built on the beach at low tide. >Later at high tide waves strikes the sand castle. In both cases >energy is converted to do work. But there is a difference. In terms of thermo? >Solar energy on the earth at 4.5 billion years ago. >> >> I am discussing energy/entropy here because that is the topic. We can >> discuss chemistry if you wish, but there is no point to going to that >> step until this has been cleared up. >> >> >Each of >> >which is interdependent and predicated upon other levels of >> >complexity. >> >> Complexity is one of those terms that makes intuitive sense until >> you actually look at it. When you do look you will find that lots of >> your intuitive ideas are flat out wrong. I can point you to several >> books on the topic if you are interested. >> >True the sun circling the sun seems counter intuitive from >observation. Yet you seem willing to allow your admittedly ignorant position to stand as authoritative over people who work in the field. Learn some thermo and then re-examine your issues. [snip] >> >It difficult to think of the genetic code in terms as not >> >having purpose and whose design is for encoding instructions >> >aimed at for fashioning the bodies and functions of descendant >> >organisms. Another would be the heart. It has purpose. It's >> >purpose is for pumping blood throughout at living body. It's >> >designed to accomplish this function. >> >> Sounds like you are not the "evolutionist" you claimed to be. >> >I know change occurs over time. Look at dogs, all breeds are >descendant from wolves. If a great dane and a poodle can have >the same ancestry, so it's no great stretch to accept that all living >organisms have common ancestry. I do not question this fact. >> >When you >> start to look at biology you will find that things are stranger than >> you imagine. It only looks like human designed things (and humans are >> our only actual known example of designers) >> >Maybe not, insects, one animals design. a birds nest, for example. Depends on what you mean by design. If you allow that insects design then why not bacteria? Why not DNA? Why not evolution as a process? [snip] >> Not at all. One more time: all that matters from a thermodynamic >> perspective is the initial state and the end state. That is it, you >> don't need to know a thing about intermediary states, but processes, >> about time. All that matters is whether or not the initial state can >> go to the final state. >> >Ok, but what about even one state, No. Again, thermo is involved with looking at a system in an initial state and an end state and seeing how much free energy is needed to move from one to the other. > I.e. from chaos to a single cell >organism. I can accept that once a single organism appears, it's >not difficult to understand how evolution happens. The origin of that first living organism is a chemical problem, but not at thermodynamic one: obviously more than enough free energy is available. > There are plenty of things that could happen >> thermodynamically that don't happen to occur. And if you don't >> understand or accept this then you need to re-study your thermo, this >> is basic stuff. So the thermo question is whether or not there is >> sufficient free energy on Earth to take non-living stuff and make it >> living. And that is rather trivially obviously so: the energy inputs >> from the Sun are sufficient for living things to make living stuff >> from non-living stuff. That observation shows that there is no >> thermodynamic problem, none. >> >Agreed. Thermo knows nothing about DNA which is the >instructions for converting energy to useful work, You are shifting meanings of terms here. DNA is not relevant to "useful work" in terms of thermo, you have to have a different notion of useful here to repair that china. >but not without >DNA. What happens to a cell if the DNA is removed in a science >lab? More to the point, what happens if you cut off its supply of energy? [snip] >Until I read Kims post, I do not recall ever reading or even thinking >about thermodynamics as it applies to living organisms. I understood >how it applied to inorganic matter, but not life. I have Kim to thank(?) >for my sudden occupation with this. Too bad because biologists and biochemists have certainly done this. And they have none of Kim's problems. Every single reaction in a cell is thermodynamically allowed. [snip] -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1405071356000001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5arp77F2q7c4jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> , >> > Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some >> > Christians >> > do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about >> > everything they do. I don't believe that. I do believe that God listens >> > to >> > our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests >> > and >> > exams. >> >> Too lazy to study? > > No, I also studied but I do believe God also helped. Some of the rich > students hired tutors to help them but I was to poor to hire tutors. I saw > your post in the alt.athism newsgroup. I no longer subscribe to the > alt.religion.jehovahs-witn newsgroup. > > Do you believe that atheists HATE Christians. Do you believe that atheists > do not want to work with Christians? Do not answer until you read this > article: > > > Monday, May 7, 2007 2:06 p.m. EDT > > Professor Forced Out for Citing George Washington > > A tenured college professor is set to be fired for simply sending out an > e-mail to colleagues containing George Washington Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 In article <5arp77F2q7c4jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > , > > Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some Christians > > do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about > > everything they do. I don't believe that. I do believe that God listens to > > our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > > exams. > > Too lazy to study? No, I also studied but I do believe God also helped. Some of the rich students hired tutors to help them but I was to poor to hire tutors. I saw your post in the alt.athism newsgroup. I no longer subscribe to the alt.religion.jehovahs-witn newsgroup. Do you believe that atheists HATE Christians. Do you believe that atheists do not want to work with Christians? Do not answer until you read this article: Monday, May 7, 2007 2:06 p.m. EDT Professor Forced Out for Citing George Washington A tenured college professor is set to be fired for simply sending out an e-mail to colleagues containing George Washington Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 14, 2007 Posted May 14, 2007 "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message news:Xns992EC31A87EDdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159... > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:NOj1i.547$Ta.298 > @bignews5.bellsouth.net: > > > > > "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > > news:es4a43d7h562rrvh5178c7mqbccfe33vg7@4ax.com... > >> On 11 May 2007 17:58:04 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> - Refer: <1178931484.446237.115210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > >> >On May 12, 12:35 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > >> : > >> > >> >> I do not see him as deliberately dishonest. Mistaken, but not > >> >> dishonest. > >> > > >> >You're being naive. He should have known how thermodynamics relates > >> >to open systems. If anything he was being dishonest in trying to > pass > >> >himself off as an expert and claiming he'd "proven" something. > >> > > >> >Martin > >> > >> Mr. Esque has demonstrated time and time again that he has no problem > >> whatsoever with blatant fraudulent dishonesty, provided that it is in > >> support of his infantile delusions. > >> > > It utterly impossible to express a difference of opinion from > > the "self-righteous" hypocrites who make "authoritative" > > pronouncements without being called a liar, dishonest, > > deluded etc. > > Not true. > > > But it IS utterly impossible to pass oneself off as an expert > in some particular of physics and then pretend you were ignorant of it. > Either the person passing themself off is lying about the expertise or > about the physics. Possibly both. > Speaking for myself, I admit I not an expert , but I did take one year highschool and two semisters of physics at college level. So I do know a little about the subject. In studing thermodynamics, I do not recall anything regarding thermodynamics and living systems. This was a subject totally ignored. I still have my one of my old thermo books. I think I sold the other books. It's entitled "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics." by G.J. Van Wylen and R.E. Sonntag, 1986. In glancing through this book and searching the subject index, there is nothing about living systems, biology or any related topic I could find. Another book from the library at our recrecation center is "thermodynamics" by Enrico Fermi, but it's the same story, there is nothing pertaining to biology, entropy and living systems, etc. So, accept for biologist, I question whether physic deals with any of this. And biologist definately "have a dog in this fight". > > > These _dictatorial authorities_ will not tolerant another > > viewpoint. But they will demand summission to their own > > decrees, if one fails to yield or cowtails to their edicts then > > the personal charges and character assination follows. > > Fortunately, this is the extent of their power. > > Apparently you don't HAVE another viewpoint. > Actually I do have a different viewpoint where thermodynamics and evolution is concerned. I totally disagree with Kim on this. Evolution is a fact! I don't question this, but he raised the issue of thermodynamics as it pertains to the origin or life. This I have problems with. I think he raised legimate issue on this one point. You just support the liars' right to lie and not be braced on it. > I've got news for you. > You made my point. He voiced a different viewpoint from the one you hold, therefore he is a liar. No room for disagreement > > They have NO SUCH RIGHT. Not only that, in any truly democratic venue > they will not be accorded such a right. > If he is a liar, you must first prove that he stated something he really does not believe. I think he is mistaken on much of what he writes, but he believes it. Therefore he is no liar! > > So what kind of UNDEMOCRATIC venue are you trying to foist off on us? > Just some civility, courtesy and respect for the views with which you disagree. > - > Dave Oldridge+ > ICQ 1800667 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.