The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you agree that Science should be based upon that which is observable?

Its more than that and you know it. But I can see we are in for your usual string of questions getting know where as in your other threads.
The issue is simple: does abiogenesis violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Whether abiogenesis took place, whether I believe it took place or in the second law, what the definition or practice of science are, whether either of the items in question are scientific, whether abiogenesis is observable or testable, all those are totally irrelevant to the question being asked.

Your claim it appears is that all theories violate the second law by default unless proved otherwise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its more than that and you know it. But I can see we are in for your usual string of questions getting know where as in your other threads.
The issue is simple: does abiogenesis violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Whether abiogenesis took place, whether I believe it took place or in the second law, what the definition or practice of science are, w ...[text shortened]... t appears is that all theories violate the second law [b]by default unless proved otherwise.[/b]

I first have to find out your view of Science or else we will just be talking over each other.

Its more than that and you know it.

I know its more that just plain observation. Observation is one of the steps in the Scientific Method. If you discard observation, then it would be of no use for us to continue with this discussion since we wouldn't be talking science anymore.

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.

Despite your wilfull ignorance, I'll try once more. The TOE does not start, nor rest upon abiogenesis. Therefore my inability to demonstrate that life arose in any way at all is utterly beside the point. So your assinine statement above is completely meaningless. Go back to elementary school, idiot.

Originally posted by Starrman
Despite your wilfull ignorance, I'll try once more. The TOE does not start, nor rest upon abiogenesis. Therefore my inability to demonstrate that life arose in any way at all is utterly beside the point. So your assinine statement above is completely meaningless. Go back to elementary school, idiot.

The TOE would not be valid from an atheistic point of view if you as an atheist do not assume abiogenesis theory to be true, since your big TOE assumes the existence of life to start off with.

Your calling me an idiot will not change the truth of the above statemnet. Go ahead and call me a fool as many times as you like. You accomplish nothing by doing so, except of course revealing the shallowness of your own character.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The TOE would not be valid from an atheistic point of view if you as an atheist do not assume abiogenesis theory to be true, since your big TOE assumes the existence of life to start off with.

Your calling me an idiot will not change the truth of the above statemnet. Go ahead and call me a fool as many times as you like. You accomplish nothing by doing so, except of course revealing the shallowness of your own character.

What the hell does an atheistic standpoint have to do with any of this, idiot? All my atheism says is that I deny the existence of god, it is not conjoined to any beliefs I may or may not have about the TOE. THis clearly indicates your statement is balls. But even if atheism did in some far-fetched way directly relate to the TOE, the TOE would still not require any theory about abiogenesis upon which to built. Me calling you an idiot will not change your false perception of the truth, but it still works as a referent.

The theory of evolution only requires that life exists. Many of us happen to believe that life came about through abiogenisis, but that is irrelevant. I don't think anyone here will debate that life exists, unless we get into another 'existance of reality' debate.

Whether life began through abiogenisis, the intervention of God, a gigantic sneeze, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter to the theory of evolution. Evolution is concerned only with what happened after life was here and reproducing. How life came about is an important question, but doesn't relate at all to evolution.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The TOE would not be valid from an atheistic point of view if you as an atheist do not assume abiogenesis theory to be true, since your big TOE assumes the existence of life to start off with.

Are you claiming that life does not exist?

Many people belive that God created life, and then allowed evolution to happen. You are correct that Evolution assumes that life exists. But we can make this assumption without having to figure out why life exists. Science is interested in how life began, but we don't need to settle on that to support evolution. We can look in the mirror or out the window and observe that life exists. Atheists like me may believe that life came about without help from any sort of divine being, and even religious people often believe that life came about through abiogenisis, just that a God set things up so that it could work. But evolutionary theory does not care how life got here. Maybe life has existed for an infinite period of time, whatever. It isn't likely, but life exists somehow and that is all that matter.

If you want to argue about abiogenisis, fine, but even if you did convince all of us that God created life, it would have no bearing on our beliefs regarding evolution, as the two are simply not related.

Originally posted by dj2becker

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

I think abiogenesis happened, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true, explain why I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Starrman
What the hell does an atheistic standpoint have to do with any of this, idiot? All my atheism says is that I deny the existence of god, it is not conjoined to any beliefs I may or may not have about the TOE. THis clearly indicates your statement is balls. But even if atheism did in some far-fetched way directly relate to the TOE, the TOE would still not ...[text shortened]... u an idiot will not change your false perception of the truth, but it still works as a referent.

Who's truth are you talking about? Your own? Or are you saying that truth exists which is true for all people at all times?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
The theory of evolution only requires that life exists. Many of us happen to believe that life came about through abiogenisis, but that is irrelevant. I don't think anyone here will debate that life exists, unless we get into another 'existance of reality' debate.

Whether life began through abiogenisis, the intervention of God, a gigantic sneeze /b]. How life came about is an important question, but doesn't relate at all to evolution.

The theory of evolution only requires that life exists.

Tell that to Starmann. But I'm afraid he won't be listening.

Evolution is concerned only with what happened after life was here and reproducing. How life came about is an important question, but doesn't relate at all to evolution.

Unless of course you make the claim that life came about without any intelligent intervention and use abiogenesis theory in support of that, as all atheists should do, or are there atheists that believe that life came about by some intelligent intervention?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The theory of evolution only requires that life exists.

Tell that to Starmann. But I'm afraid he won't be listening. [/b]

Please. This is embarrassing. This is what Starrmann keeps telling you. That
evolution has nothing to do with how life began, so the connection between
atheism, abiogenesis and evolution is not even an issue at this point. To not
be able to show how abiogenesis started life such that evolution could take
place doesn't mean you've disproven the whole TOE, nor that atheists are
wrong since it has nothing to do with atheism per se. You're just stirring
the pot again, aren't you?

Originally posted by stocken
Please. This is embarrassing. This is what Starrmann keeps telling you. That
evolution has nothing to do with how life began, so the connection between
atheism, abiogenesis and evolution is not even an issue at this point. To not
be able to show how abiogenesis started life such that evolution could take
place doesn't mean you've disproven the whole ...[text shortened]... it has nothing to do with atheism per se. You're just stirring
the pot again, aren't you?

Please. This is embarrassing. This is what Starrmann keeps telling you.

I admit. He is embarrassing. 😀

That evolution has nothing to do with how life began, so the connection between atheism, abiogenesis and evolution is not even an issue at this point.

So are you saying that life did NOT ultimately 'evolve' from non-life?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I think abiogenesis happened, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true, explain why I'm wrong.

"Think" is a crucial word there. That abiogenesis has been demonstrated to be true is totally a difference matter.

With regards to why abiogenesis defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I suggest you read my initial post and hand me your critique of it, if you can manage to do so.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Please. This is embarrassing. This is what Starrmann keeps telling you.

I admit. He is embarrassing. 😀

That evolution has nothing to do with how life began, so the connection between atheism, abiogenesis and evolution is not even an issue at this point.

So are you saying that life did NOT ultimately 'evolve' from non-life?[/b]

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

However life came into being, be it god, be it random chance, be it aliens, be it magic, whatever way, regardless of anything, the TOE is concerned from then on!!!!!