The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which of the following claims would you subscribe to:
According to the Second Law
1. Self replicating molecules cannot exist.
2. Self replicating molecules cannot change.
3. Self replicating molecules cannot change into large molecules involving more atoms.
4. Self replicating molecules cannot occur by 'random'.
5. Natural selection (or the process ...[text shortened]...
Do you have any other claims that you feel would cause abiogenesis to violate the second law.

I would say that it has never been demonstrated that life can "evovle" from non-life in conjunction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I just had a look at the site listed as a reference link in the original post. It is interesting that he starts of by placing strawmen in bold type right at the beginning of his argument. He claims that evolutionary theory rests on the big bang theory (which he also misrepresents) and abiogenesis.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would say that it has never been demonstrated that life can "evolve" from non-life in conjunction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So you are not claiming that abiogenesis is in violation of the law you are merely claiming that it has not been demonstrated?

How does that differ from
"I would say that it has never been demonstrated that life can "evolve" from non-life in conjunction with the The Law of Gravity."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I just had a look at the site listed as a reference link in the original post. It is interesting that he starts of by placing strawmen in bold type right at the beginning of his argument. He claims that evolutionary theory rests on the big bang theory (which he also misrepresents) and abiogenesis.

The TOE needs a starting point, ya know.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are not claiming that abiogenesis is in violation of the law you are merely claiming that it has not been demonstrated?

How does that differ from
"I would say that it has never been demonstrated that life can "evolve" from non-life in conjunction with the [b]The Law of Gravity."[/b]

IMO if abiogenesis did not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it would be demonstrated to be possible.

So either I reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics or I reject Abiogenesis. I opt rather to reject Abiogenesis Theory...

Originally posted by dj2becker
The TOE needs a starting point, ya know.

It has one, well after the big bang and after abiogenesis. It begins once life has arrived.

Originally posted by Starrman
It has one, well after the big bang and after abiogenesis. It begins once life has arrived.

Yeah, yeah... But if you cannot demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible then your whole TOE collapses.

Unless you wanna claim that God used your TOE.

Originally posted by dj2becker
IMO if abiogenesis did not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it would be demonstrated to be possible.

So either I reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics or I reject Abiogenesis. I opt rather to reject Abiogenesis Theory...

That's a ridculously invalid position to hold. Demonstration of one thing and it's violation of another are two unnecessarily linked things.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yeah, yeah... But if you cannot demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible then your whole TOE collapses.

No it doesn't, it's just that you refuse to accept that. But then again, youre an idiot so I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by dj2becker
IMO if abiogenesis did not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it would be demonstrated to be possible.

So either I reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics or I reject Abiogenesis. I opt rather to reject Abiogenesis Theory...

I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that they contradict one another or just that you have never seen a step by step proof that they don't?

[edit]
I am reading your post over and over and I cant get it.
Are you saying that because we haven't put a man on mars it must necessarily violate the Second Law?

Every known required process for abiogenesis is known not to violate the second law.

Originally posted by Starrman
That's a ridculously invalid position to hold. Demonstration of one thing and it's violation of another are two unnecessarily linked things.

Your inability to demonstrate that life arose from non-life, just shows how ridiculous your big TOE is from an atheistic perspective at least.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that they contradict one another or just that you have never seen a step by step proof that they don't?

Do you accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a universal law of physics?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a universal law of physics?

I suppose so in as far as it is an extremely good approximation for what we observe. I also realise that it is largely a result of probability theory and that the true "Law of Physics" if such a thing exists is that some fundamental processes are random.

[edit]
But that is besides the point. The issue is whether or not abiogenesis violates the law or not, and what I or anyone else may choose to believe about the validity or universality of the law is quite irrelevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suppose so in as far as it is an extremely good approximation for what we observe. I also realise that it is largely a result of probability theory and that the true "Law of Physics" if such a thing exists is that some fundamental processes are random.

[edit]
But that is besides the point. The issue is whether or not abiogenesis violates the law or ...[text shortened]... else may choose to believe about the validity or universality of the law is quite irrelevant.

So you agree that Science should be based upon that which is observable?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your inability to demonstrate that life arose from non-life, just shows how ridiculous your big TOE is from an atheistic perspective at least.

Are you claiming that you can demonstrate how life began?