Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

TheGnome · Jul 14, 2008

True_Blue said:
I said nothing about uniformity or constancy, Gnome. Of course you are right, but I never said otherwise. I'm gratified that you say that the entire universe is increasing in entropy. This is a very, very important observation, and I hope that you hold fast to that understanding.

Do you smoke the reefer or something? You're not making any sense.

Were you so confused that you thought people were arguing that the universe doesn't increase in entropy? Your reading comprehension can't be that bad. Perhaps you're just a very dedicated troll. I have a friend who is a dedicated troll, but I don't think he's this dedicated. That very friend of mine seriously needs a girlfriend.

truckboattruck · Jul 14, 2008

Having spent the past hour(ish) perusing this thread and his other thread in this section (which I can't link to), I'm gonna have to go ahead and declare Poe's Law on True Blue.

I know, I know... I hate to do it too as this discussion is *ahem* entertaining, but I've gotta call it as I see it.

So:

Poe's Law on you, Mr. Blue.

And with that, I say good day.

I said good day!

pgp_protector · Jul 14, 2008

truckboattruck said:
Having spent the past hour(ish) perusing this thread and his other thread in this section (which I can't link to), I'm gonna have to go ahead and declare Poe's Law on True Blue.

I know, I know... I hate to do it too as this discussion is *ahem* entertaining, but I've gotta call it as I see it.

So:

Poe's Law on you, Mr. Blue.

And with that, I say good day.

I said good day!

Hmm so who are you

(No it's not one of my socks)

True_Blue · Jul 15, 2008

This post will seek to address several posts at once.

First of all, as The Gnome pointed out, the entropy of the entire universe is increasing over time. I hope you all will come to understand the implications of this statement of truth. Second, the entropy of any individual system that is a subset of the universe, which can be defined to include a truly vast array of possible systems, is increasing over time, as long as it is a closed system. Even if it is not a completely closed system, like a huge rocket engine with just a bit of sunlight shining and reflecting off its casing, entropy still increases over time, as long as the system is "materially closed." Our own bodies work this way--entropy will kill us, even though we're taking in food, water, sunlight, medical care, etc. and we're not purely a "closed" system. Third, one can draw lots of thermodynamic boxes out of lots of systems to understand how a variety of systems interface with each other. Draw a box around the sun and the sun's emissions, and you can see that entropy in the sun increases over time. Draw a box around a solar flare emitted by the sun, and the entropy of the flare increases over time as the energy of the flare grows increasingly dilute. Draw a box around a species of life forms, and that species, modeled as a single self-replicating machine, will wind down under any reasonable assumptions. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mendelsaccount. Draw a box around a single human being, and the box eventually solidifies into a coffin.

The only natural things in the universe not subject to 2nd Law entropy are the other natural laws (c, g, etc.). So in abiogenesis, the relevant systems are the sun (subject to entropy), solar flux (subject to entropy), simple molecules (subject to entropy), the natural laws (neutral), and the earth (subject to entropy). You can create subunits of each of these as you prefer and draw thermodynamic boxes around them, as they are all subject to entropy. So when I create a ledger and add up each of these generic subsystems, the natural laws cancel out on both sides, and I'm left with Entropy: 4, Abiogenisis 0. You can't get there from here. The only way to get to abiogenesis and evolution is to discover a completely unobserved and undiscovered phenomenon of a natural law that somehow "wants" life to evolve. That's your only alternative, and a lot of scientists have reached this conclusion. But that force is nothing more than impersonal God, a convenient tool for a person who doesn't want to bend his knee to a God that may hold him accountable. But I recommend bending your knees, even though I know from experience that it hurts. As the Bible says, it is better to fall upon the rock than to have the rock fall upon you.

True_Blue · Jul 15, 2008

Vene said:
Since True_Blue has refused to use his model in Temperate's challenge and has since changed the subject to thermodynamics, is it safe to say his model has been rejected? Or do we need more nonsense from him?

No one has yet explained to me why Temperate's post is relevant to this thread. His reaction has no bearing on anything as far as I can tell, and my probabilities model is not a chemical calculator. What is relevant to this thread would be the set of natural chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the 2 base pairs of DNA. With those equations, a chemical engineer of reasonable skill (I'm not such a beast, by the way) could very easily calculate the probabilities of a long strand of DNA forming under aggressively beneficial and accommodating conditions and assumptions.

us38 · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
Even if it is not a completely closed system, like a huge rocket engine with just a bit of sunlight shining and reflecting off its casing, entropy still increases over time, as long as the system is "materially closed."

Wrong. The only system that is guaranteed to have increasing entropy over time is an isolated system. Any other system can have mass and energy flows, both of which can decrease the entropy of the system.

Third, one can draw lots of thermodynamic boxes out of lots of systems to understand how a variety of systems interface with each other.

But one can't say what's happening inside the box purely based on the fact that the entropy of the box is increasing, as you have tried to.

Draw a box around a species of life forms, and that species, modeled as a single self-replicating machine, will wind down under any reasonable assumptions.

Now you're not talking about entropy.

True_Blue said:
No one has yet explained to me why Temperate's post is relevant to this thread.

It was explained to you quite well what the point of Temperate's post was. You were supposed to test your probabalistic chemistry model on the reaction, and see how well it meshed with experimental data. You refused to do so.

His reaction has no bearing on anything as far as I can tell, and my probabilities model is not a chemical calculator.

Indeed, the only thing your model is is useless.

With those equations, a chemical engineer of reasonable skill (I'm not such a beast, by the way) could very easily calculate the probabilities of a long strand of DNA forming under aggressively beneficial and accommodating conditions and assumptions.

You still don't get it, do you? There wouldn't be a probability of a long strand of DNA forming. If reaction conditions are met such that a string of DNA would form, the DNA forms. If the conditions aren't met, it doesn't. No probability involved.

Besides, no scientists think that life started off with DNA.

Psudopod · Jul 16, 2008

No one has yet explained to me why Temperate's post is relevant to this thread. His reaction has no bearing on anything as far as I can tell, and my probabilities model is not a chemical calculator.

You were modeling chemical reactions as a set of independent probablility events with the same fixed probablility. What Temperate's question does is show you how this is wrong. If you're method was valid, you'd be able to to answer his question. This is basic chemistry. If you can't get your head around the basics, how are you going to deal with something complex like abiogenesis?

Psudopod · Jul 16, 2008

First of all, as The Gnome pointed out, the entropy of the entire universe is increasing over time. I hope you all will come to understand the implications of this statement of truth. Second, the entropy of any individual system that is a subset of the universe, which can be defined to include a truly vast array of possible systems, is increasing over time, as long as it is a closed system.

The entropy of a closed system will increase. The entropy of components of a closed system may decrease, even though the whole system increases. If it didn't we'd never have any chemical reactions taking place at all. Look up Gibbs free energy.

The only natural things in the universe not subject to 2nd Law entropy are the other natural laws (c, g, etc.).

c and g aren't laws, they are constants. I don't think you understand what a law is. A law (in the scientific sense) is a mathmatical equation. They are not necessary universal, some may hold only under very strict conditions. (Hooke's law, the ideal gas equation etc).

But that force is nothing more than impersonal God, a convenient tool for a person who doesn't want to bend his knee to a God that may hold him accountable.

That doesn't hold for Christians or athiests. Christians already worship God, athieists don't care about something they don't believe exists. It's not a case of not wanting to, it's a case of not believing that there's anything out there to bow to. You don't bow to the IPU, do you?

What is relevant to this thread would be the set of natural chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the 2 base pairs of DNA. With those equations, a chemical engineer of reasonable skill (I'm not such a beast, by the way) could very easily calculate the probabilities of a long strand of DNA forming under aggressively beneficial and accommodating conditions and assumptions.

You don't understand chemistry and DNA didn't form the way you think it did. It's not a case of whole bunch of atoms happening to fly together and hit each other in just the right way to make a long string of DNA.

mpok1519 · Jul 16, 2008

minimal proability is a euphemism for inevitability.

thaumaturgy · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
This post will seek to address several posts at once.

First of all, as The Gnome pointed out, the entropy of the entire universe is increasing over time. I hope you all will come to understand the implications of this statement of truth.

What manner of hubris is this? Every scientist on this board understands the Second Law's "universal applicability".

You, however, seem to think that all systems can be arbitrarily defined as to their boundaries for the purpose of applying the Second Law.

Please, again, don't try to make your ignornace of this topic sound somehow like our ignorance of this topic.

Second, the entropy of any individual system that is a subset of the universe, which can be defined to include a truly vast array of possible systems, is increasing over time, as long as it is a closed system.

And that is precisely where most Creationists drop the ball. There are systems that are NOT CLOSED (ie the ice-cube tray in your freezer) so they can show localized decreases in entropy.

Third, one can draw lots of thermodynamic boxes out of lots of systems to understand how a variety of systems interface with each other. Draw a box around the sun and the sun's emissions, and you can see that entropy in the sun increases over time. Draw a box around a solar flare emitted by the sun, and the entropy of the flare increases over time as the energy of the flare grows increasingly dilute. Draw a box around a species of life forms, and that species, modeled as a single self-replicating machine, will wind down under any reasonable assumptions.

You know, I really have to wonder why I bothered to type THIS POST OUT:

thaumaturgy said:
True_Blue, you are demonstrably wrong on this point. You are making a huge error in this. Here is your error, so you can know it in the future:

You are acting as if it is possible to arbitrarily draw the borders of the system to which the second law applies.

This is patently false. It is, in fact, the biggest error you can make in applying the Second Law. It has to be in an isolated system. Otherwise it is part of some overall larger system.

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, the crystallization of ice in your freezer has a negative entropy term for the "reaction". But the key is that your freezer is not an isolated system. It is part of the fridge which is pumping out heat and taking in electricity, so it is part of the larger universe system.

You cannot "arbitrarily" define the boundaries of the system. In order for something to be be analyzed for its compliance with the 2nd Law you have to place the boundaries of the system such that there is not influx of energy across the boundaries.

That is anything but an arbitrary choice.

How do I know that the ice-cube tray is not an isolated system? Because the entropy of crystallization of the ice is negative, ergo something else must be going on. The entropy of some larger system is increasing.

Because you seemed to just blow right past it and repeat your claims. A solar flare is NOT a "closed system".

It is almost as if you are incapable of reading that which shows how you are in error. But I fear it may be that you are unwilling to listen to others. And that is probably the most sad aspect of your debate.

The only natural things in the universe not subject to 2nd Law entropy are the other natural laws (c, g, etc.)

Wh...what?? Please explain this mysterious statement.

. So in abiogenesis, the relevant systems are the sun (subject to entropy), solar flux (subject to entropy), simple molecules (subject to entropy), the natural laws (neutral), and the earth (subject to entropy).

True_Blue, honestly can you say you've actually read anything anyone on this board has written in response to your claims? No offense, but it appears you haven't read (or understood?) anything that has been said so far in this topic.

Why don't you go back to what defines a "Spontaneous Chemical Reaction"

G =

H - T

S

G = Gibbs Free Energy (must be <0 for a spontaneous rxn)

H = Enthalpy of the reaction (heat released or taken in)

S = Entropy of the reaction (can be positive or negative)

Overall the second law is obeyed in an ISOLATED SYSTEM, but there are reactions that can happen spontaneously in a system that carry a NEGATIVE ENTROPY TERM.

Some natural reactions in the world carry a NEGATIVE

S term so long as the delta H term is more negative the Delta G term will be negative and the reaction will proceed spontaneously.

Please, I beg of you, address these points read them, and clarify exactly what you are arguing against.

You can create subunits of each of these as you prefer

NO YOU CANNOT. The "subunits", in order to apply the Second Law to, cannot have an energy exachange across the boundaries! That is what is meant by isolated.

and draw thermodynamic boxes around them, as they are all subject to entropy.

Do you come from a planet where "rules" are not set for anything? Because without rules all these concepts become meaningless drivel.

The second law has no meaning in an unconstrained, non-isolated system into and out of which energy can be exchanged.

And you can't define where those boundaries are arbitrarily. The energy flux is what defines those boundaries.

So when I create a ledger and add up each of these generic subsystems, the natural laws cancel out on both sides, and I'm left with Entropy: 4, Abiogenisis 0.

No, you don't. Because you have not addressed any of the actual chemistry or thermodynamics involved.

You can't get there from here.

Maybe you can't, but that's because you haven't seen the map:

But that force is nothing more than impersonal God, a convenient tool for a person who doesn't want to bend his knee to a God that may hold him accountable.

Please don't toss that "accountability" garbage at us. We are scientist we are held accountable for our actions words and deeds every single day of our lives. That is why science works. Accountability is there and we all bend our knees to our own potential for error.

Apparently you bend your knee to God, but somehow forget that you may not be god-like in your grasp of topics you deign to argue against.

This is what is called the "sin of pride". Need I remind you of Proverbs 11:2?

I recommend that if you think the Bible is the word of your God, then you start bending your knees even when the inconvenient stuff is spoken.

Vene · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
No one has yet explained to me why Temperate's post is relevant to this thread. His reaction has no bearing on anything as far as I can tell, and my probabilities model is not a chemical calculator.

And yet, abiogenesis is chemistry. Which would make your model completely irrelevant.

What is relevant to this thread would be the set of natural chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the 2 base pairs of DNA. With those equations, a chemical engineer of reasonable skill (I'm not such a beast, by the way) could very easily calculate the probabilities of a long strand of DNA forming under aggressively beneficial and accommodating conditions and assumptions.

So, your model does deal with chemistry. Then use it on Temperate's challenge. If it doesn't work with a relatively simple reaction why would it work on a complex series of reactions?

Kyrisch · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
Draw a box around a species of life forms, and that species, modeled as a single self-replicating machine, will wind down under any reasonable assumptions.... Draw a box around a single human being, and the box eventually solidifies into a coffin.

Exactly. A living thing will die unless it has access to energy. If you draw a box around it, it will eventually die. However, abiogenesis posits that the Earth was very energetic (warmer, et cetera) when the first protobionts formed, so your argumentum ad entropy just doesn't hold up.

Summary: A living thing is an open system. Therefore, the Second Law does not apply.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
This post will seek to address several posts at once.

First of all, as The Gnome pointed out, the entropy of the entire universe is increasing over time. I hope you all will come to understand the implications of this statement of truth.

It has none, not where biology is concerned. The entropy of the universe is tending to a maximum (not increasing indefinitely), but not necessarily every system contained therein.

True_Blue said:
Second, the entropy of any individual system that is a subset of the universe, which can be defined to include a truly vast array of possible systems, is increasing over time, as long as it is a closed system. Even if it is not a completely closed system, like a huge rocket engine with just a bit of sunlight shining and reflecting off its casing, entropy still increases over time, as long as the system is "materially closed."

While an almost-closed system is likely to approximately follow the Second Law there is absolutely no guarantee: that tiny energy input/output could be all that is needed to decrease entropy.

I'm also stunned that you would use a rocket as an example of a closed system. Do you know how dynamic one can be? The energy output alone is extraordinary. You might as well say the Sun is 'almost closed'.

True_Blue said:
Our own bodies work this way--entropy will kill us, even though we're taking in food, water, sunlight, medical care, etc. and we're not purely a "closed" system.

Bingo. We're nowhere near a closed system: we require an input of energy. We are as open as we can possibly be.

True_Blue said:
Third, one can draw lots of thermodynamic boxes out of lots of systems to understand how a variety of systems interface with each other. Draw a box around the sun and the sun's emissions, and you can see that entropy in the sun increases over time. Draw a box around a solar flare emitted by the sun, and the entropy of the flare increases over time as the energy of the flare grows increasingly dilute.

Well, the entropy of the last box would decrease, since all the energy is being lost, and it eventually becomes completely uniform: it is perfectly ordered, or as near enough as you can hope to be.

True_Blue said:
Draw a box around a species of life forms, and that species, modeled as a single self-replicating machine, will wind down under any reasonable assumptions. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mendelsaccount.

No, it won't: under reasonable assumptions (adequate space, resources, mates, etc), the species will thrive indefinitely. Have you seen the Earth, recently? There's quite a few species, and they've been going for three and a half billion years.

True_Blue said:
Draw a box around a single human being, and the box eventually solidifies into a coffin.

Only after ~70 years. In the meantime, energy is continually input via food, water, and air, and output by a plethora of means (skin shedding, sweating, homoeostasis, pooping, etc), so the human is not a closed system. Indeed, even after death, the box continues to experience energy input and output.

True_Blue said:
The only natural things in the universe not subject to 2nd Law entropy are the other natural laws (c, g, etc.).

The only things the Second Law applies to is closed systems and only closed systems.

True_Blue said:
So in abiogenesis, the relevant systems are the sun (subject to entropy), solar flux (subject to entropy), simple molecules (subject to entropy), the natural laws (neutral), and the earth (subject to entropy).

Correct. Everything in the universe is subject to entropy change. The Earth's entropy, for instance, is changed by the action of the Sun's rays hitting the atmosphere and surface.

True_Blue said:
You can create subunits of each of these as you prefer and draw thermodynamic boxes around them, as they are all subject to entropy. So when I create a ledger and add up each of these generic subsystems, the natural laws cancel out on both sides, and I'm left with Entropy: 4, Abiogenisis 0.

Err... what? What on Earth are you tallying?

TheGnome · Jul 16, 2008

True Blue is either a very dedicated troll, as I mentioned previously, or intellectually crippled in such a way that he doesn't understand basic science. I don't understand what is so difficult about the universe as a whole increasing in entropy, but not uniformly increasing in entropy. I guess a decent analogy is to think of the earth's global surface temperature. The global surface temperature may be of a particular value, but that doesn't mean particular regions can't exceed that temperature. The temperature of regions at the equator will be much higher than at the poles.

thaumaturgy · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
No one has yet explained to me why Temperate's post is relevant to this thread.

Interesting claim, True Blue, because it is incorrect. Perhaps you remember waaaay back to THIS post:

thaumaturgy said:
That's what YOU are supposed to provide. It's kinda the whole point of the exercise. It is a standard type of exercise in intro organic chemistry classes. You are provided with reactants and several products which form from the competiting reactions. Note the differences in these three products, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is where the NO2 attaches to the ring. The different positions are "ortho", "meta", and "para".

The key here is that you can check if your "random processes" technique when applied to this reaction.
...
Look, True, if your system can't do this, it isn't worth much when applied to a much more complex system like biogenesis. This should be a piece o' cake for your patented "random chemistry system" approach.

This is hardly a "method of analysis", this is a simple, known reaction in organic chemistry that results in a variety of products and you have to use your bizarre "pure random chemistry skills" to assess how much of each final product is the result.

Now I know that "following your own discussion" is usually not a Creationist strong suit, nor are "details".

Again, I'll explain it to you (but I'll bookmark it this time so I won't have to explicitly dig it up again) so that next time when you incorrectly claim no one has explained this to you I can, again, prove you incorrect.

Here's how it goes:

1. Creationist makes claim about some method to "disprove" a chemical process using statistics which amounts to a random "coinflip" type of Bernoulli Trial.

2. Creationist is incapable of understanding the chemistry that governs the probabilities or the underlying assumptions.

3. Chemists come along to point out how the underlying assumptions have been ignored.

4. Creationist then claims Chemists are wrong because this is how it "really" is from "first principles".

5. Chemists ask Creationist to prove this "Random Technique" has applicability in a known process so that this technique can be tested for accuracy. In this case a simple test of starting materials and 3 possible choices of ending materials that occur in different ratios. Pretty much a simple analogue to the claim earlier to show the probabilities of formulating given results from given inputs.

6. Creationist now is onto the "game" and realizes that "testing" his or her claims against a topic they know virtually nothing about will result in their being shown up as incorrect.

7. Creationist provides page after page after page of "excuses" as to why they won't even try the test.

8. After several pages Creationist claims no one ever explained how this is germane to the point.

And so we go 'round and 'round.

Why not just face it, we can all use the Search function really well and your "technique" appears to be something you yourself must not believe in enough to try it out in a test-run with known results.

By your fruits we know....

True_Blue · Jul 16, 2008

Psudopod said:
You were modeling chemical reactions as a set of independent probablility events with the same fixed probablility. What Temperate's question does is show you how this is wrong. If you're method was valid, you'd be able to to answer his question. This is basic chemistry. If you can't get your head around the basics, how are you going to deal with something complex like abiogenesis?

So far, all I'm getting from you guys are posts like this one. You've made a conclusion without an explanation. I'm not interested in posts without analysis and explanation.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 16, 2008

True_Blue said:
So far, all I'm getting from you guys are posts like this one. You've made a conclusion without an explanation. I'm not interested in posts without analysis and explanation.

Then kindly debunk my post. It was chock-full of analyses and explanations.

According to the Second Law, at least.

True_Blue · Jul 16, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
Wh...what?? Please explain this mysterious statement.

NO YOU CANNOT. The "subunits", in order to apply the Second Law to, cannot have an energy exachange across the boundaries! That is what is meant by isolated.

The second law has no meaning in an unconstrained, non-isolated system into and out of which energy can be exchanged.

And you can't define where those boundaries are arbitrarily. The energy flux is what defines those boundaries.

By intuition, I know that the laws of the universe are co-equal, co-existent, and interrelated. Therefore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not govern the other laws of the universe. Otherwise, we'd see the laws of the universe unravel before our very eyes, much like Steven King's Dark Tower series (which I hated and don't recommend to anyone). Also, the laws of the universe govern everything within it, so that every physical process, big and small, is governed by the 2nd law and the other physical laws. Admittedly, this is a bald assertion without evidence, but some things can be known without evidence and relied on to a 100% degree of certainty.

When a mathematician and scientist seeks to create a law of the universe, like the second law, they formulate the law exactly like the Supreme Court--by narrowly tailoring the law to a specific set of facts. To keep the law from coming under attack, they defined the law in such a way as to preclude any possibility that the law would not apply to every conceivable system in the universe. This is a completely reasonable thing to do, and it makes sense.

In my previous post, I went beyond the strict confines of the 2nd Law as applied by physicists. First, I said the 2nd Law also applies not just to things like heat engines but to every conceivable system with any semblence of order in the entire universe. Second, I said that 2nd Law effects predominate even when the system is not completely closed. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a completely closed system. But the 2nd Law has marvelous practical utility despite that fact. So, I gave numerous examples of practical situations of entropy overpowering a non-closed system despite the flow of stuff through the box. I care far more about the practical application of the law than the simplistic academic construction of the 2nd Law. I must disagree that your statement that the 2nd law only works in a closed system. It works on a practical level only if the system is "materially closed", and as applied to abiogenesis and the enormous complexity of even a simple protein or DNA segment, the 2nd Law is truly overwhelming. All the sunlight in the universe does nothing to make abiogenesis more likely. Only a force with greater power than the 2nd Law can void entropy and allow the creation of life, and that force is God--a creative, loving, and powerful being.

Thaumaturgy, I recognize this thread and this conversation is a spiritual debate more than a scientific debate. Whenever science is applied to religion, a person's religious convictions kick in, regardless of their viewpoints on science. It overwhelms a person's capacity to reason objectively. From the get-go, before I ever posted on CF, I knew that threads such as these would only influence someone who is genuinely undecided, those who have already decided would wither move ever so slightly toward my view or harden their viewpoints even more. Those are my expectations--I do not expect some sort of ideal Platonic discourse.

us38 · Jul 17, 2008

True_Blue said:
So, I gave numerous examples of practical situations of entropy overpowering a non-closed system despite the flow of stuff through the box.

No, you didn't. You listed a bunch of stuff, and then said certain things about what happened according to the 2nd law. You never once attempted to back up these assertions, even when asked repeatedly by multiple people.

I care far more about the practical application of the law than the simplistic academic construction of the 2nd Law.

*ahem*

Bull. ****.

You never once stopped to think about or apply the 2nd law. You wouldn't even accept that the equation presented was the 2nd law. All you've thus far delivered to the debate is rhetoric.

It works on a practical level only if the system is "materially closed", and as applied to abiogenesis and the enormous complexity of even a simple protein or DNA segment, the 2nd Law is truly overwhelming.

What do you mean by "materially closed"? There are more ways to decrease the entropy of a system then by moving stuff out of it.

And, of course, everytime a DNA strand is made in your body, entropy increases. That doesn't stop then from being put together.

Whenever science is applied to religion, a person's religious convictions kick in, regardless of their viewpoints on science. It overwhelms a person's capacity to reason objectively. From the get-go, before I ever posted on CF, I knew that threads such as these would only influence someone who is genuinely undecided, those who have already decided would wither move ever so slightly toward my view or harden their viewpoints even more. Those are my expectations--I do not expect some sort of ideal Platonic discourse.

Don't try to cop out here. You're arguments are either convincing, or (as is the case) not. Stop trying to pin your lack of persuasion on the audience. The fault lies entirely with you.

Psudopod · Jul 17, 2008

So far, all I'm getting from you guys are posts like this one. You've made a conclusion without an explanation. I'm not interested in posts without analysis and explanation.

No I haven't. I've seen this. I've studied this reaction. I know what the results are. I want to see if your method can get the same results. If it can't then it's worthless. Do you understand that? If you can't use it to predict the results of a reaction we can test, how can you stand by and say it will give you corect results for one we can't?

Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy

New Member

Noted strange person

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Godspeed, Spacebat

Godspeed, Spacebat

Veteran

Well-Known Member

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

This Statement Is False

Contributor

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy

Well-Known Member

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Contributor

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Godspeed, Spacebat

Similar threads