Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[thaumaturgy]

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?

Here's an interesting article abstract. I don't have access right now to this, but it might be of interest (to the serious science people):

Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems

J. P. Amend, * E. L. Shock Thermodynamic calculations showed that the autotrophic synthesis of all 20 protein-forming amino acids was energetically favored in hot (100°C), moderately reduced, submarine hydrothermal solutions relative to the synthesis in cold (18°C), oxidized, surface seawater. The net synthesis reactions of 11 amino acids were exergonic in the hydrothermal solution, but all were endergonic in surface seawater. The synthesis of the requisite amino acids of nine thermophilic and hyperthermophilic proteins in a 100°C hydrothermal solution yielded between 600 and 8000 kilojoules per mole of protein, which is energy that is available to drive the intracellular synthesis of enzymes and other biopolymers in hyperthermophiles thriving in these ecosystems.

Group Exploring Organic Processes in Geochemistry (GEOPIG), Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
(SOURCE)

 

[True_Blue]

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?

If what happened in X-Men happened in real life, I would immediately abandon Christianity. But both X-Men and I, Robot are fantasies, and don't reflect life as it has been observed. I went running with a geneticist this morning, and he pretty much agreed with my appraisal that cumulative genetic defects will cause the extinction of the human race. Precisely the opposite of X-Men, and not a happy thought, but it's consistent with observation and with the 2nd Law.

 

[True_Blue]

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.

What if you had a point source and an unlimited supply of H2S? How would a liter of solution containing a chemosynthetic organism compare with a liter of photosynthetic cyano, spread out to maximize PAR received?

 

[True_Blue]

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'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.

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?

I don't blame you for seeing a contradiction, Thaumaturgy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't blame you for seeing a contradiction, Thaumaturgy.

What a great response!

I hope you do realize you are a prideful, boastful person whose ignorance in what he prides himself on has brought his fall in this particular set of discussions.

I know this is a lesson most creationists and fundamentalists think they are immune to learning but learn it they must sooner or later.

Thank you for being open and honest enough to agree that your pride ran before you a bit too quickly. It happens to everyone.

Please, in the future,don't tell us how we should be humble until you have learned how to be humble first.

I know it is hard to have someone point out your hypocrisy, but we all have to deal with that at one time or another in our lives.

Thanks again for stepping up to the plate.

 

[True_Blue]

What a great response!

I hope you do realize you are a prideful, boastful person whose ignorance in what he prides himself on has brought his fall in this particular set of discussions.

I know this is a lesson most creationists and fundamentalists think they are immune to learning but learn it they must sooner or later.

Thank you for being open and honest enough to agree that your pride ran before you a bit too quickly. It happens to everyone.

Please, in the future,don't tell us how we should be humble until you have learned how to be humble first.

I know it is hard to have someone point out your hypocrisy, but we all have to deal with that at one time or another in our lives.

Thanks again for stepping up to the plate.

If I were right even 55% of the time, I'd already have made millions of dollars in the stock market and be on a yacht somewhere in the Carribbean right now. So it's obvious that I'm right at least less than half the time. I'm afraid that with respect to humility, any small humility I have is purely mental, and has not yet sunk into my bones.

The only way I can make a statement of fact about anything is by faith. Our duty is to determine where best to place our faith.

 

[Vene]

If I was right 55% in my chemistry labs, I'd probably wind up killing myself.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What if you had a point source and an unlimited supply of H2S? How would a liter of solution containing a chemosynthetic organism compare with a liter of photosynthetic cyano, spread out to maximize PAR received?

I am not sure why efficiency is even an issue, not much in biology ever exceeds the "just good enough" point of efficiency. So it seems that God cares little about life being any more efficient in the use of any energy source other than meeting the absolute lower limit of being able to survive and prosper.

Why does efficiency of energy use in life seem to matter so much to you?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If I were right even 55% of the time, I'd already have made millions of dollars in the stock market and be on a yacht somewhere in the Carribbean right now. So it's obvious that I'm right at least less than half the time. I'm afraid that with respect to humility, any small humility I have is purely mental, and has not yet sunk into my bones.

The only way I can make a statement of fact about anything is by faith. Our duty is to determine where best to place our faith.

If I was right only 55% of the time an any of the jobs I have held in my life I would be fired in a heartbeat. What job do you work at that allows such an abysmal record?

 

[Kyrisch]

The only way I can make a statement of fact about anything is by faith. Our duty is to determine where best to place our faith.

This is the problem. Creationists have 1% evidence and 99% faith. Scientists have, say 80% evidence and 20% faith. Even though things can never truly and absolutely be proven, facts can still exist as those conclusions to which the abundance of data points.

Your "we can never create sentience" is based on very little fact, and a lot of faith. This is wherein the discrepancy lies between yours and our statements of fact.

 

[Tiberius]

If what happened in X-Men happened in real life, I would immediately abandon Christianity. But both X-Men and I, Robot are fantasies, and don't reflect life as it has been observed.

Neither of them reflects life as it has been observed? Well, my goodness! That certainly didn't stop you from claiming that "I, Robot" reflected the real life ability of people to tell the difference between sapient computer programs and sapient people!

(By the way, the word is sapient, not sentient in this context.)

 

[True_Blue]

Neither of them reflects life as it has been observed? Well, my goodness! That certainly didn't stop you from claiming that "I, Robot" reflected the real life ability of people to tell the difference between sapient computer programs and sapient people!

(By the way, the word is sapient, not sentient in this context.)

I'm referring to the most basic level of consciousness sufficient for self-awareness and creative response to environmental stimuli, much like a bug is self-aware. The word "sentient" more correctly describes the concept that I am referring to, though I have made "sapient" my word for the day. I fully expect mankind will never be able to develop either the sentient or sapient kind of computer program.

 

[Kyrisch]

The point is this: How do you know? How do you know we haven't already, for that matter? You still have not addressed the point.

 

[TheGnome]

72 pages and nothing accomplished. What a surprise, another creationist has no idea how science works.

 

[True_Blue]

The point is this: How do you know? How do you know we haven't already, for that matter? You still have not addressed the point.

Life and sentience can't be defined conclusively, Kyrisch. We know them when we see them. I've had long hours of conversation and debate on this point before, and I'm not willing to repeat the process. I know you know what life and sentience are.

 

[True_Blue]

72 pages and nothing accomplished. What a surprise, another creationist has no idea how science works.

It's hard to accomplish anything when you and others post snide and disrespectful remarks, Gnome. Anyways, the work of this thread goes on in the minds of the lurkers, not the posters.

 

[Psudopod]

If you're referring your post on springs, Hooke's law applies to the action of the spring, not the spring itself. Your example is an excellent application of 2nd law thermodynamics as applied to the decay of the order of the spring as it's used over time.

Nope, Hooke's law is the relationship between the length of an extended spring and the force needed to extend it. It is a law that breaks down outside of fixed conditions, contary to the statement in one of your earlier posts. And law doesn't break down because the spring "decays". You can take a brand you spring, overstrech it and Hookes law stops working.

Blue, when you can't get your head round simple physics and chemistry, how do you expect to be taken seriously when critisising cutting edge stuff? You've been given the oppertunity to show that your model works, and you didn't, but you expect us to just except that it's right because you say so? Science works with evidence. The more outlandish the claim, the more evidence you will need to convince people. You've given us no evidence. You're focusing on wordy explanations which feel right to you, instead of showing that your methods give demonstratbly better results.

 

[True_Blue]

Nope, Hooke's law is the relationship between the length of an extended spring and the force needed to extend it. It is a law that breaks down outside of fixed conditions, contary to the statement in one of your earlier posts. And law doesn't break down because the spring "decays". You can take a brand you spring, overstrech it and Hookes law stops working.

Blue, when you can't get your head round simple physics and chemistry, how do you expect to be taken seriously when critisising cutting edge stuff? You've been given the oppertunity to show that your model works, and you didn't, but you expect us to just except that it's right because you say so? Science works with evidence. The more outlandish the claim, the more evidence you will need to convince people. You've given us no evidence. You're focusing on wordy explanations which feel right to you, instead of showing that your methods give demonstratbly better results.

I don't want to belabor the point about springs--we're kinda talking past each other on that one.

The model I presented is a discussion on why abiogenesis cannot work. It doesn't PROVE abiogenesis cannot work, because you cannot disprove a negative. That's a philosophical impossibility. But I'm not the one making outlandish claims--there isn't a shred of evidence in favor of abiogenesis, and there never will be. The Phoenix Mars Lander poking around on the surface of Mars certainly uses cutting edge technology. It takes a lot of skill to place and control a robot on another planet. But it's worth noting that atheists/evolutionists come a long way in the last 70 years, from speculating about invasions by sentient beings on Mars to hoping for animals and higher life forms to hoping for simple unicellular organisms to hoping for simple amino acids to hoping for liquid water to hoping for evidence that liquid water once existed. Do you see the progression? The Mars Lander is a waste of money when there are thousands of more pertinent scientific discoveries waiting for investment capital, like AIDS, cancer, and renewable energy. Return on investment works better when the purpose is sound, not when the purpose is poor but accidentally yields something useful. Pursuing evolutionist dreams is holding back the scientific progress of the human race.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't want to belabor the point about springs--we're kinda talking past each other on that one.

The model I presented is a discussion on why abiogenesis cannot work. It doesn't PROVE abiogenesis cannot work, because you cannot disprove a negative. That's a philosophical impossibility. But I'm not the one making outlandish claims--there isn't a shred of evidence in favor of abiogenesis, and there never will be.

But in the model you aren't actually attacking abiogenesis, just a strawman of it. All this thread has demonstrated to me is that your math skills blow, or at least your skills in probability calculation and how to apply it. The same goes for your chemistry skills and your skills on any other field of science. Now, if you want to show that abiogenesis is impossible/improbable, you should first get a feel of what the theory behind it is now, and then criticize that. You haven't done anything even remotely in that direction.

The Phoenix Mars Lander poking around on the surface of Mars certainly uses cutting edge technology. It takes a lot of skill to place and control a robot on another planet. But it's worth noting that atheists/evolutionists come a long way in the last 70 years, from speculating about invasions by sentient beings on Mars to hoping for animals and higher life forms to hoping for simple unicellular organisms to hoping for simple amino acids to hoping for liquid water to hoping for evidence that liquid water once existed. Do you see the progression?

Way to misrepresent yet another scientific field. Congratulations.

Look, a theory of advanced life on Mars has never been a scientific consensus. If anything, the idea was popularized by non-scientists. Cellular life has been a possibility given some results of the 1970's missions. But even if there would be no indication of water on Mars, we'd still be going there. Why? Because it is the closest planet in our vicinity and the easiest to explore (Venus isn't easy due to the thick cloud cover) and has a geography most like earth.

The Mars Lander is a waste of money when there are thousands of more pertinent scientific discoveries waiting for investment capital, like AIDS, cancer, and renewable energy. Return on investment works better when the purpose is sound, not when the purpose is poor but accidentally yields something useful. Pursuing evolutionist dreams is holding back the scientific progress of the human race.

This can actually be said for a lot of human endevours, not just space exploration and has very little to do with a supposed evolutionary basis of the exploration. We put a lot of money and effort into art, which could also be a lot better used. I went to an acoustics conference three weeks ago where quite a lot of sessions where on the acoustics of music halls and the way instruments produce music. Thousands of people working on these completely irrelevant topics, while more pressing topics (like the acoustics of hospitals) remain unaddressed.

Some people say science should only be usefull. Other people say science is like art, "useless" knowledge like the geography of mars or the acoustics behind the way a clarinettist plays the first two bars of rapsody in blue enrich our life, and that is a perfectly valid reason to research them. I go for the latter. Judging from your post, you obviously do not and I guess this shows.

 

[Psudopod]

I don't want to belabor the point about springs--we're kinda talking past each other on that one.

It's not the springs that is importat. The point is that there are many laws which are not universal. We're not talking past each other; you have not acknowledged this point.

The model I presented is a discussion on why abiogenesis cannot work. It doesn't PROVE abiogenesis cannot work, because you cannot disprove a negative.

You are proposing an alternative to chemisty. If you want this alternative taken seriously, you have to show it gives better results. So far you have not done so.

But I'm not the one making outlandish claims--there isn't a shred of evidence in favor of abiogenesis, and there never will be.

There is evidence of self relicating chemicals. Evidence of protocells. Just because you don't see it or understand doesn't mean it isn't there.

But it's worth noting that atheists/evolutionists come a long way in the last 70 years, from speculating about invasions by sentient beings on Mars to hoping for animals and higher life forms to hoping for simple unicellular organisms to hoping for simple amino acids to hoping for liquid water to hoping for evidence that liquid water once existed. Do you see the progression?

Evidence that science progressed like this not just popular opinion please.