Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[mpok1519]

soccer ball physics arent related to plate techtonics...

 

[Naraoia]

A single example does not prove that all naturalistic processes follow a non-linear decay.

Is there even non-linear decay in that graph? I looked at it and it sure as hell looked linear. (A while back I also tried some number-juggling on the dipole moment data quoted in this TO FAQ. I tried both a linear and an exponential model and IIRC there was virtually no difference, certainly no evidence for exponential as opposed to linear decay.)

 

[Naraoia]

Do you happen to know the set of reactions that would lead to the formation of adenine paired with Thymidine and Cytosine paired with Guanine?

True Blue, that's not what you are looking for. You are more likely looking for reactions that lead to the formation of a not-so-short RNA polymer. As the paper Vene's spotted demonstrates (by your favourite means: modelling based on reasonable assumptions), nucleobases and ribose/deoxyribose can form from very simple organic compounds spontaneously under a range of conditions perfectly conceivable in a hydrothermal system. So building blocks are not a problem. Polymerisation is not a problem either as there are good candidates for catalysts (montmorillonite) The main question that remains is whether this polymerisation will lead to self-replicating molecules in a reasonable time frame. Some related numbers are cited on TalkOrigins - and I can't recall you raising any valid objections to any of them.

Complementary base pairing once you have a nucleic acid is not a big deal. It happens quite efficiently without anything other than a suitable environment (meaning a buffer and appropriate temperature). I don't know, in the past two weeks I've been trying my hands at exactly that (in situ hybridisation, to be precise), and it doesn't seem to involve much magic. Not even an enzyme.

 

[True_Blue]

Is there even non-linear decay in that graph? I looked at it and it sure as hell looked linear. (A while back I also tried some number-juggling on the dipole moment data quoted in this TO FAQ. I tried both a linear and an exponential model and IIRC there was virtually no difference, certainly no evidence for exponential as opposed to linear decay.)

Try eliminating the 1950 and 1945 data points. From casual inspection, they look like outliers. If you want to, run the outlier test and see if the difference between the 1945 & 1950 data points & the difference between the rest of the years is greater than 2 standard deviations.

Technically, statistical rules don't allow extrapolations outside the actual data set, but that problem is inevitable in any study of origins. You are correct--there aren't quite enough data points in the geomagnetic data set to say unambiguously that the decay is nonlinear. But to my knowledge, constant friction always results in nonlinear decay, and 2nd law processes in general are always nonlinear (to my knowledge). I could provide lots of examples similar to the stove and soccer ball examples, but it's hard to prove something by repeated examples. It just makes sense to me. Assuming the dynamo theory is true [the theory itself is so complicated that I have my doubts, though I'm spending time conceptualizing it as I walk to work], the convection in the earth's mantle should itself be winding down in a non-linear way. Plus, solar wind will weaken the field as well, also in a non-linear fashion because the sun is inevitably decaying non-linearly. I can't imagine how magnetic field decay would be linear, and even if it were, that would still prove fatal to an old earth X billion years old.

I guess I can't PROVE that natural processes are non-linear other than by providing hundreds and hundreds of examples.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I guess I can't PROVE that natural processes are non-linear other than by providing hundreds and hundreds of examples.

And it only takes a single example of a linear process to disprove your hypothesis. And guess what the other members have been posting...

 

[us38]

But to my knowledge, constant friction always results in nonlinear decay,

Actually, constant friction always results in a linear decay of velocity. mdv/dt=f, and f is constant, then v has to be liner.

and 2nd law processes in general are always nonlinear (to my knowledge).

Please explain how you conclude that, starting with:

Or stop throwing around the second law of thermodynamics like it explains everything. Either is fine with me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I guess I can't PROVE that natural processes are non-linear other than by providing hundreds and hundreds of examples.

Or, you can be proven incorrect because there are natural processes that follow zero order rate kinetics (which are linear).

All I needed to do is find that a natural process exists that follows zero order rate kinetics and I've proven your point wrong.

As much as 80% of theraputic doses of salicylic acid is metabolised in the liver. Conjugation with glycine forms salicyluric acid and with glucuronic acid forms salicyl acyl and phenolic glucuronide. These metabolic pathways have only a limited capacity. Small amounts of salicylic acid are also hydroxylated to gentisic acid. With large salicylate doses, the kinetics switch from first order to zero order, as metabolic pathways become saturated and renal excretion becomes increasingly important (REFERNCE: Levy, G; Tsuchiya, T (1972-09-31). "Salicylate accumulation kinetics in man". New England Journal of Medicine 287 (9): 430–2)(WIKI SOURCE HERE)

Emphasis added.

So there you have a natural process (the pharmacokinetics of aspirin in the human body).

QED.

 

[True_Blue]

Actually, constant friction always results in a linear decay of velocity. mdv/dt=f, and f is constant, then v has to be liner.

Please explain how you conclude that, starting with:

Or stop throwing around the second law of thermodynamics like it explains everything. Either is fine with me.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061106113634AApGn2H

 

[pgp_protector]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061106113634AApGn2H

You really don't understand math either do you ?

 

[True_Blue]

Or, you can be proven incorrect because there are natural processes that follow zero order rate kinetics (which are linear).

All I needed to do is find that a natural process exists that follows zero order rate kinetics and I've proven your point wrong.

Emphasis added.

So there you have a natural process (the pharmacokinetics of aspirin in the human body).

QED.

Even if you define "natural" to living organism, and even if we accept your conclusion that metabolism of aspirin is linear [it makes sense that it would be linear if the body is saturated with the stuff], you've not addressed the foundational point of my earlier post. Non-linearity of natural process makes the age-of-the-earth question difficult.

 

[us38]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061106113634AApGn2H

Why should I trust some random person on a message board, especially when he's demonstrably wrong? If you have a constant friction force, velocity decays linearly with time. This is an application of Newton's laws and basic calculus. I'll even prove it to you.

F=ma=mdv/dt=f (f is the constant friction force)
mdv=fdt
mv=ft+C (C is a constant of integration dependant on initial conditions)
v=ft/m+C

Q.E.D., v decays lineraly with time if a constant friction force is applied.

 

[us38]

Even if you define "natural" to living organism, and even if we accept your conclusion that metabolism of aspirin is linear [it makes sense that it would be linear if the body is saturated with the stuff], you've not addressed the foundational point of my earlier post. Non-linearity of natural process makes the age-of-the-earth question difficult.

No, it doesn't. It just means that you have to use calculus. The rate at which something radioactive decays is proportional to the amount there is. That is, if N is the amount of radioactive substance, then dN/dt=-kN, where k is some constant dependant on the material in question. The solution to this differential equation is very easily found to be N=C*e^(-kt), where C is some constant dependant on initial conditions. If N=No when t=0, then this equation becomes N=No*e^(-kt). No can be found from the presence of daughter isotopes present in the sample, and N and k can both be directly measured. The only unknown in the equation is t, which can be found easily.

 

[mpok1519]

and plate techtonics move according to the natural magnetic pulls of the earth, and the friction of the plate techtonics is dependent upon many variables, one being the amount of silicate between layers; more silicate = more friction.

By your soccer ball/techtonic physics, eventually the plates will just, stop because the kinetic force moving them ceases; but any geologist will tell you the plates have been moving averagely at a constant rate.

 

[True_Blue]

Why should I trust some random person on a message board, especially when he's demonstrably wrong? If you have a constant friction force, velocity decays linearly with time. This is an application of Newton's laws and basic calculus. I'll even prove it to you.

F=ma=mdv/dt=f (f is the constant friction force)
mdv=fdt
mv=ft+C (C is a constant of integration dependant on initial conditions)
v=ft/m+C

Q.E.D., v decays lineraly with time if a constant friction force is applied.

One can always use simple linear equations to model a nonlinear phenomenon. Here's a few more sources:

http://www.tau.ac.il/~klafter1/ar3.pdf
http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~elmer/flab/documents/NLDFriction.pdf
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6842572

It's intuitively obvious that friction is non-linear. A few years ago, I took my Dodge Stealth to Montana and accelerated to 140 mph. As I pushed down the gas pedal at a linear rate, the additional amount of velocity I gained declined. In other words, the amount of atmospheric and road friction increased faster than the additional thrust applied.

To be honest, I'm not sure I accept the idea of continental drift at all. I know from spending a lot of time around my dad (a land surveyor) that pretty much all land everywhere shifts around slightly. Without a uniform, unmoving frame of reference, it will be virtually impossible to measure an entire continent moving by an inch. The continents have definitely moved, probably to the full extent postulated, but I'm not convinced they are moving today. Catastrophic movement seems very reasonable. I've been poking around online trying to find surveying data, to no avail. Without good evidence, I conclude that the continents are basically no longer moving.

 

[us38]

It's intuitively obvious that friction is non-linear.

Have you forgotten what you said?

But to my knowledge, constant friction always results in nonlinear decay,

This is demonstrably wrong. If you don't have a constant friction force, the velocity doesn't decay linearly. But if you do have a constant friction force, then velocity does decay linearly. You said it didn't. You were wrong.

And yes, I'm well aware that friction is not, in general, linear. Friction has to taken into account when you're designing pipe networks to move chemicals from one part of a plant to another. If you ignore it, you get burnt out pump and less than desired flow rates.

 

[True_Blue]

and plate techtonics move according to the natural magnetic pulls of the earth, and the friction of the plate techtonics is dependent upon many variables, one being the amount of silicate between layers; more silicate = more friction.

By your soccer ball/techtonic physics, eventually the plates will just, stop because the kinetic force moving them ceases; but any geologist will tell you the plates have been moving averagely at a constant rate.

That's true--by my analogy, the plates will eventually come to a rest, and all volcanic activity will cease.

I find this particular model of prehistoric geology somewhat compelling, and even if you disagree, it makes an interesting read:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Science/HydroplateTheoryReviewedSelbrede.pdf

There are problems with the theory--Dr. Brown may be assuming the subterranean reservoirs were too far below ground, among other problems, some of which have been corrected. However, it does a far better job explaining the reality on the ground (like the thick worldwide band of coal, oil, and natural gas underneath miles of sedimentary rock, among many other phenomena) than uniformitarian theory. The idea that the continents have been creeping along at an inch or so per year just makes no sense to me. Evidence of the Flood is hidden in plain sight.

 

[Baggins]

. I've been poking around online trying to find surveying data, to no avail. Without good evidence, I conclude that the continents are basically no longer moving.

Did you try google?

I did and I came up with tens of thousands of hits for using GPS to measure plate movements and mountain building.

There are many thousands of hits on google scholar:

Here is just one of those papers:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5542/574

Present-Day Crustal Deformation in China Constrained by Global Positioning System Measurements

Now you can revise that unbelievably crass statement. Or I can just keep posting the thousands of scientific papers that use GPS to model crustal movement on earth, up to you.

You are so blinded by your dogma that you refuse to see what is right under your nose.

You can have no idea how idiotic this makes you look, you are obviously a person of at least average intelligence, why would you make stupid statements like that?

A normal person would trust scientific consensus unless they found compelling reasons not to. You think you know better than scientific consensus unless science can show you you are wrong, considering the number of times you have been shown to be grossly in error on just this one thread you'd think you'd lose confidence in your touching belief in your own intellectual magnificence, but apparently not.


Yours in bewildered exasperation.........

 

[mpok1519]

that spring diagram isnt exactly a good representation of what really happens to plates as they shift...

you think volcanic activity will eventually cease, but that is false; I'm assuming he wants volcanic activity to cease, for in Utopian post-Revelation apocryphal world, volcanos don't fit the definition of Utopia. This is all what I am assuming, however.

I think that a man with a doctrite in mechanical engineering(Dr. Brown) while may be smart, but not credible within the field of geology, for I don't think he needed to take many geology courses at MIT. I am sorry, but the entire article was garbage my friend; he thinks that ice ages were caused by reflecting light off of the ice shelves, which is got to be one of the most creative theories i've heard.

Its creative, but not credible. Theres no volcanologist I've heard of that suggests volcanic activity will ever cease.

 

[Baggins]

http://ofgs.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~okino/platecalc_new.html

this is fun

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,790 for gps plate tectonics. (0.16 seconds)

That is on google scholar

as is this:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, B08405, doi:10.1029/2003JB002944, 2004

Instantaneous global plate motion model from 12 years of continuous GPS observations

I think that one probably settles it doesn't it?

We estimate a global plate motion model for 17 major and minor tectonic plates solely on the basis of analysis of data from 106 globally distributed continuous GPS stations, spanning the period from January 1991 to July 2003

But why say such a ridiculous thing as - the plates don't move - anyway?

A quick way of making yourself a figure of ridicule?

 

[Baggins]

Hydroplate theory is thoroughly debunked here:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm

You'd have to be pretty desperate or pretty uneducated to bring that one up, it was destroyed over 10 years ago about a week after it was postulated - by a mechanical engineer - By Glenn Morton, who is an OEC, on AIC

http://www.answersincreation.org/walter_brown_hydroplate_theory.htm

Same as above link