Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Vene]

Interestingly, Thaumaturgy, several months ago I went out looking for scientists and scientific articles on the thermodynamics of photosynthesis in order to find the answer to a very specific technical question. After weeks of searching, I was unable to find what I was looking for. Most scientists specialize in very narrow areas, which works well most of the time, and an interdisciplinary approach to science is rare.

You do realize there are these nifty fields called biochemistry and biophysics which are interdisciplinary. You have said you do some work with a biotech company, talk to some of the researchers there, I'm sure they are well aware of these fields.
As for thermodynamics of photosynthesis, I barely looked and found multiple sources for it.
1 2 3 4
These are just free access sites, if I had access to more scientific journals I'm positive I could find more without trouble. Some of this stuff is quite old too, one of the papers was written in 1967 so the thermodynamics of photosynthesis has been pretty well studied.

How sad is this, an undergrad student could easily find information that a man with a "superdegree" can't. May I ask where you got your "superdegree?"

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

How sad is this, an undergrad student could easily find information that a man with a "superdegree" can't. May I ask where you got your "superdegree?"

I must have missed this... what's the/a "superdegree"?

 

[Vene]

Well, what he said was "My specialized training is in finance and law, but I've taken what amounts to a supermajor in a wide variety of scientific fields." and it was here.

 

[us38]

Reality is not Star Trek--I apply Godel's theorems to say that time machines, warp drivers, and worm holes will always be outside the capacity of human ingenuity.

Except the incompleteness theorem says no such thing. It says that we may not create a set of axioms that is both consistent and complete. If you want to attribute anything else to it, you better derive it from: to every w-consistent class K of formula there correspond recursive class-sign r (on free var. v), such that neither (v Gen r) nor ~(v Gen r) belong to Flg (K).

When you add in the applicable UV radiation as part of the overall system, the entropy increases.

Suppose we have two strands of DNA. We'll call them strand A and strand B. Both strands are in identical solutions at identical temperatures and pressures. Strand B is an exact copy of strand A, made from strand A. Which strand has a higher entropy?

 

[True_Blue]

You do realize there are these nifty fields called biochemistry and biophysics which are interdisciplinary. You have said you do some work with a biotech company, talk to some of the researchers there, I'm sure they are well aware of these fields.

Vene, my question is this (which has nothing to do with origins): in any particularilized photosynthetic unicellular organism, what percentage of its energy with which it creates additional biomass derives from light, and what percentage is derived from the summation of all its other nutrients (CO2, water, phosphorus, etc)?

 

[Tiberius]

true Blue, how do you respond to the argument by fantasy claims? I'm really looking forward to seeing if you can get out of that gracefully. *Gets popcorn and hopes it won't be too long before the show starts*

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Vene, my question is this (which has nothing to do with origins): in any particularilized photosynthetic unicellular organism, what percentage of its energy with which it creates additional biomass derives from light, and what percentage is derived from the summation of all its other nutrients (CO2, water, phosphorus, etc)?

If I remember my biology correctly, in most photosynthetic organisms, all energy used in the organisms life comes from photosynthesis, there may be a few organisms that are both photo and chemo synthetic or even partly exogenous. But for the most part if one is photosynthetic then all energy traces back to photosynthesis.

Now this is biology 101 stuff, and you claim to have taken science classes... What science classes did you take and where?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

true Blue, how do you respond to the argument by fantasy claims? I'm really looking forward to seeing if you can get out of that gracefully. *Gets popcorn and hopes it won't be too long before the show starts*

I doubt he will come back to it, even with his limited debate skills he has to know that there is no way to defend what he said.

His law training (from his argument skills I lay odds that it is not a law degree but a certificate from some Jr. college or some vocational school) he might be able to spot it as a no win scenario and run from it.

 

[Vene]

Vene, my question is this (which has nothing to do with origins): in any particularilized photosynthetic unicellular organism, what percentage of its energy with which it creates additional biomass derives from light, and what percentage is derived from the summation of all its other nutrients (CO2, water, phosphorus, etc)?

It's all from light. The light energy allows the plant to synthesize glucose and the energy in glucose (which is from light) is later broken down via respiration and forms ATP (the cell's energy source).

 

[True_Blue]

true Blue, how do you respond to the argument by fantasy claims? I'm really looking forward to seeing if you can get out of that gracefully. *Gets popcorn and hopes it won't be too long before the show starts*

I don't undestand what you're saying. "how do you respond to the argument by fantasy claims?"

 

[True_Blue]

It's all from light. The light energy allows the plant to synthesize glucose and the energy in glucose (which is from light) is later broken down via respiration and forms ATP (the cell's energy source).

Thank you, Vene, I appreciate it. Your appraisal is that same as other sources and people I've consulted with, who have said that any gain from other sources is insignificant at best and zero at worst.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I don't undestand what you're saying. "how do you respond to the argument by fantasy claims?"

The I, Robot post.

 

[True_Blue]

My point in the I, Robot post is to simply point out that people can intuitively differentiate between a sentient computer program and a mundane one. Sentient computer programs are the stuff of fantasy, not reality, and I'm quite convinced, for the reasons stated earlier, that mankind will foreover be unable to create a sentient program. I find it amusing that evolutionists and atheists always vociferiously object to any implication that a particular technological feat or a particular idea is beyond the bounds of human comprehension. But it is the truth, and people should be humble.

 

[True_Blue]

If I remember my biology correctly, in most photosynthetic organisms, all energy used in the organisms life comes from photosynthesis, there may be a few organisms that are both photo and chemo synthetic or even partly exogenous. But for the most part if one is photosynthetic then all energy traces back to photosynthesis.

If you don't mind my asking, generally speaking, how does sulfur as an energy source for a bacteria like Thiobaccilus Dinitrificans compare against sunlight in a phototrophic organism?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If you don't mind my asking, generally speaking, how does sulfur as an energy source for a bacteria like Thiobaccilus Dinitrificans compare against sunlight in a phototrophic organism?

I am not sure of the direct efficiency contrasts, but since sulfur is rare when compared to sunlight, it would only make sense that when the earth is looked at as a whole the photosynthetic bacteria would out compete the sulfur or other chemo-synthetic life. How ever when you break down the globe into the individual environmental niches, chemo-synthetic organisms are often found where light is rare or nonexistent, in those places chemosynthesis becomes a great advantage even if it is limited by the rarity of the energy source.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

My point in the I, Robot post is to simply point out that people can intuitively differentiate between a sentient computer program and a mundane one. Sentient computer programs are the stuff of fantasy, not reality, and I'm quite convinced, for the reasons stated earlier, that mankind will foreover be unable to create a sentient program. I find it amusing that evolutionists and atheists always vociferiously object to any implication that a particular technological feat or a particular idea is beyond the bounds of human comprehension. But it is the truth, and people should be humble.

Since, as you have pointed out, no sentient computer programs are known to exist, it is impossible to say if a human could tell the difference between the two.

However, there are a few computer experts I have known that would argue against your idea, and I would agree with them.

Unless an AI was based on our own sentience, it would most likely be to alien to the way we think that we would never be able to identify them as sentient at all.

Our sentience is based on our physical form, the range at which we can see and hear things, the range of temperatures we can feel, the speed at which we can form ideas and react to our environment. An AI that was not based on those parameters would see the universe in an entirely different way than we do, making any actions by this AI unfathomable to us and our reactions unfathomable to it.

Even among other humans that share most of the same attributes, slight social and cultural differences severely hamper our understanding of one another. Just imagine the difficulties trying to understand something that shares no cultural or social similarities.

For all we know about how life like an AI would react to things or understand it's universe, there could be thousands of them out there right now, living their lives out in the networks we created, and we would not even know it, and they likely would have no idea that we exist either.

 

[Tiberius]

My point in the I, Robot post is to simply point out that people can intuitively differentiate between a sentient computer program and a mundane one. Sentient computer programs are the stuff of fantasy, not reality, and I'm quite convinced, for the reasons stated earlier, that mankind will foreover be unable to create a sentient program. I find it amusing that evolutionists and atheists always vociferiously object to any implication that a particular technological feat or a particular idea is beyond the bounds of human comprehension. But it is the truth, and people should be humble.

true Blue, the characters in that movie were able to intuitively differentiate between a sentient computer program and a mundane one not because of any skills posessed by the people, but because that's what was decided to happen in the script.

By the same logic, I could claim that every now and then, people are born with mutations that give them abilities not posessed by regular people. After all, that's what X-men shows, yes?

 

[Vene]

Thank you, Vene, I appreciate it. Your appraisal is that same as other sources and people I've consulted with, who have said that any gain from other sources is insignificant at best and zero at worst.

And this is knowledge from a relatively low level biology class. You have said you have taken various science classes. But if you can't even retain simple information about photosynthesis why should I believe you when you make other claims? (Not to mention your complete botching of thermodynamics.)

 

[Blayz]

But it is the truth, and people should be humble.

Can someone explain the mindset of a fundy that has the arrogance to proclaim something as "the truth" and immediately follow that with "people should be humble"?

Do the words contradiction and irony not appear in their vocabulary?

 

[thaumaturgy]

and I'm quite convinced, for the reasons stated earlier, that mankind will foreover be unable to create a sentient program.

Please don't conflate your possible limitations with everyone else. Have some humility.

I am sure making a sentient program is beyond the likes of you and I, but don't assume everyone is as limited as we may be.

I find it amusing that evolutionists and atheists always vociferiously object to any implication that a particular technological feat or a particular idea is beyond the bounds of human comprehension.

I'm sorry if we are prone to battle back darkness and ignorance. I have seen far too many Creationists who worhip and love the ignorance. "Teach the Controversy (because we ain't gonna work on clearing it up, but as long as there's 'controversy' we get our say)".

We as scientists know that we are in a long slog that may not end up in our knowing much more than we started...BUT AT LEAST WE ARE TRYING.

But it is the truth, and people should be humble.

This is truly ironic. You have no smattering of this humility you want to foist on others. "Do as I say, not as I do", seems to be the law of Creationism Land.

Who on this board has come on made massive claims about chemistry and geology and then actively ignored the mounds of data and science presented showing how those claims are in error, oversimplifications or incorrect?

YOU (and most creationists on this board) seem to suffer from the sin of pride in your own 'gut feelings', which you think somehow trump the honest, hard work many of us have done in these fields.

You come on here, make big forceful claims and when shown how you are in error or have ignored some fundamental aspect you either: run away, come up with caveats, give yourselves 'outs', or change the subject.

I've seldom seen a Creationist with humility on here.

I'm sorry, True_Blue, but you might wish to read the bible for content once in a while:

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?