1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI am perfectly well aware that some isotopes of some elements are radio active. I know for a fact that the common hydrogen atom with a single proton and single electron is not. Do you have any evidence that all oxygen isotopes are radio active? If so do you have any reference stating what the half-life is for the most common isotope? All I have asked for is one reference. Is that to hard?
Nuclear, atomic, nucleous, atom, neutrons, protons, nuclei, electrons, radioactive decay and thermonuclear weapons (I threw that one in for free)? Do these ring a bell? Just what did you think atoms were made up of? Little bits of fluffy lint perhaps?
Congratulations, you really have an extraordinary talent for being obtuse.
I am very specific. It is you that is being obtuse.
Cluster in a bunch? Suh-weet Jesus! Try to grasp the concept of infinite time and what that might do to an object, system, black hole, galaxy, universe or a Twinkie.
Do you have any proof that there is infinite time in the universe?
Why don't you try to grasp the concept of gravity? It doesn't get less with time.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe 2nd law does not state that all atoms are radioactive, and you know it.
I am perfectly well aware that some isotopes of some elements are radio active. I know for a fact that the common hydrogen atom with a single proton and single electron is not. Do you have any evidence that all oxygen isotopes are radio active? If so do you have any reference stating what the half-life is for the most common isotope? All I have asked for ...[text shortened]... e universe?
Why don't you try to grasp the concept of gravity? It doesn't get less with time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYet you can't spell radioactive? Great, that Math degree is coming in handy. Do I look like Google to you? Do your own research.
I am perfectly well aware that some isotopes of some elements are radio active. I know for a fact that the common hydrogen atom with a single proton and single electron is not. Do you have any evidence that all oxygen isotopes are radio active?
When I say that the universe will end with a whimper rather than a bang what did you think I meant? What do you think the uniform, slightly radioactive cloud I proposed will be made up of? Hydrogen perhaps? What do you think the space between stars contains other than stray particles and Hydrogen atoms? When I say the universe will reach an equilibrium, what do you think that will be made up of? Do you really think I'm proposing something other than simple atoms? Perhaps a new form of particle, something in a pleasing pink shade?
That's it, as I said before, I conceed. You are obviously right, I'm very wrong. I give up, what more do you want.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI never said it did, and you know it.
The 2nd law does not state that all atoms are radioactive, and you know it.
Hand of Hecate supported your statement that "all molecules have a tendency to break down" by claiming:
"Even in the abscence of elevated temperature, oxygen, pressure or a host of other variables, the molecule/element will be subject to arbitrarily small disturbance that will cause a nuclear decay event. These events, to my knowledge, cannot be predicted, but, they will happen. "
So I am pointing out that a molecule of ordinary hydrogen will never experience a nuclear decay event.
Even with my lowly maths degree I know that much.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd a universe full of ordinary hydrogen atoms would not be that complex, would it?
I never said it did, and you know it.
Hand of Hecate supported your statement that "all molecules have a tendency to break down" by claiming:
[b]"Even in the abscence of elevated temperature, oxygen, pressure or a host of other variables, the molecule/element will be subject to arbitrarily small disturbance that will cause a nuclear decay event. The ...[text shortened]... l never experience a nuclear decay event.
Even with my lowly maths degree I know that much.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich claim is it this time?
I suppose it depends how you measure complexity or what you mean by the word. But it is irrelevant to the point I was making. Your claim remains false whichever way.
Go ahead and jump up and down till you are purple in the face, and while you are doing it you can chant, "You are wrong, you are wrong!"
But it won't help you anything. I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence that any of my claims are wrong...
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have provided the evidence several times you simply choose to ignore any such posts.
Which claim is it this time?
Go ahead and jump up and down till you are purple in the face, and while you are doing it you can chant, "You are wrong, you are wrong!"
But it won't help you anything. I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence that any of my claims are wrong...
4.
Originally posted by dj2becker
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
So I will ask you a yes or no question:
If left to itself will a single hydrogen molecule break apart into two separate hydrogen atoms?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have provided the evidence several times you simply choose to ignore any such posts.
I have provided the evidence several times you simply choose to ignore any such posts.
[b]4.
Originally posted by dj2becker
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
So I will ask you a yes or no question:
If left to itself will a single hydrogen molecule break apart into two separate hydrogen atoms?[/b]
When did I ignore your post?
I have responded to everyone of them. You are the one ignoring the response.
t is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
So I will ask you a yes or no question:
If left to itself will a single hydrogen molecule break apart into two separate hydrogen atoms?
Do you have the foggiest notion what the difference between a chemical compound and a single molecule is?
Now I suggest you get yourself a grade 9 chemistry textbook.
You are really wasting my time.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou ignore my and other's posts and drive this off into what happens to chemical compounds over time.
[b]I have provided the evidence several times you simply choose to ignore any such posts.
When did I ignore your post?
[/b]
You seem to have admitted that when energy is input into a system complexity can increase. So given that Earth is not a closed system, do you admit that regardless of how life came to exist, it didn't have to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadFree Radicals Baby! Its the new style on the block.
I never said it did, and you know it.
Hand of Hecate supported your statement that "all molecules have a tendency to break down" by claiming:
[b]"Even in the abscence of elevated temperature, oxygen, pressure or a host of other variables, the molecule/element will be subject to arbitrarily small disturbance that will cause a nuclear decay event. The l never experience a nuclear decay event.
Even with my lowly maths degree I know that much.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowIn this thread I have been focussing specifically on abiogenesis.
You ignore my and other's posts and drive this off into what happens to chemical compounds over time.
You seem to have admitted that when energy is input into a system complexity can increase. So given that Earth is not a closed system, do you admit that regardless of how life came to exist, it didn't have to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
I agreed that there are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
However, raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerFirst off, UV light causes DNA damage and cancer by dimerizing thymine, it doesn't break down anything, it actually attaches two things (thymine molecules) to each other.
In this thread I have been focussing specifically on abiogenesis.
I agreed that there are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you ...[text shortened]... ause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information).
We absorb some solar energy through our skin to generate vitamins.
Plants absorb solar energy all the time, they can't survive without it.
Only some mutations lose information, most of them do not change the amount of information and sometimes you have a gain of functional information.
As I pointed out before, the undirected energy of supernovae explosions has lead to the formation of molecules as complex as amino acids. In light of this evidence, how can you claim undirected energy cannot lead to increased complexity?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowFirst off, UV light causes DNA damage and cancer by dimerizing thymine, it doesn't break down anything, it actually attaches two things (thymine molecules) to each other.
First off, UV light causes DNA damage and cancer by dimerizing thymine, it doesn't break down anything, it actually attaches two things (thymine molecules) to each other.
We absorb some solar energy through our skin to generate vitamins.
Plants absorb solar energy all the time, they can't survive without it.
Only some mutations lose information ...[text shortened]... ght of this evidence, how can you claim undirected energy cannot lead to increased complexity?
But that is less complex than a thymine and adenine attachment is it not?
We absorb some solar energy through our skin to generate vitamins.
Plants absorb solar energy all the time, they can't survive without it.
But there is a complex mechanism at work there which utilizes the radiant energy from the sun to generate vitamins. The same applies to the chloroplast during photosynthesis.
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
Only some mutations lose information, most of them do not change the amount of information and sometimes you have a gain of functional information.
This is just temporary, remember, and only applies to living material. All living things eventually decay and die.
The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:
"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983)
teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.
[Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 (P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021:
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:
"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."
A.E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA:
I believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.
As I pointed out before, the undirected energy of supernovae explosions has lead to the formation of molecules as complex as amino acids. In light of this evidence, how can you claim undirected energy cannot lead to increased complexity?
It might interest you that the Stanley miller experiment also produced amino acids. But these had to be extracted immediately after formation, otherwise the high energy radiation destroys them as quickly as they are produced.