I have a few pages of what I think are original thoughts and observations. Today I realized another observation.

Almost no one questions the validity of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Today I think I realized a third that scientists have been testing and verifying for generations and proven it as thoroughly as the other two: That is life comes from life.

Every year scores, maybe hundreds, of biochemist and there students try to generate life in a test tube and fail. They have been attempting this at least since the 1950�s when I first read about it. Maybe even prior to that. What else could the reasonalbe person conclude from these decades of failures except life come from life?

They're still wrestling with how second law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution can both be true at the same time. The answer is in what they're named -- a law and a theory. It may be a convincing theory, but it is still a theory and will remain a theory simply because it cannot be observed or tested.

That "life comes from life" is plain enough, evidenced by the fact that some theorize life on earth came from somewhere in space. If life elsewhere is discovered, then we'll get around to asking how it got there.

Now to your point -- I don't think "life comes from life" is an original thought with you. Moses seemed pretty sure of it.

Steve.

Yep. Think of how many hundreds of years and thousands of scientists and inventors tried to fly before it was realized that it's a physical law that it's impossible.

Oh. Wait. Never mind.

One could conclude that the science is simply not quite there yet.

Philosophers used to talk about The Chain of Being, a more valid "chain of being" is simply that "life creates life" and that this chain ultimately began with God.

Calhoun,

You built a strawman and tried but failed to convince most folks. Since the dawn of time men reailzed heavier than air things could and did fly all the time. They watched birds and animals and bugs and fish fly. They even threw things for great distances and shot arrows even further. Once they mastered the right shape and power to weight the only creatures to give it any thought also flew.

RM, There's been three laws since about 1860 (four if you count the zeroth law of thermodynamics .

Do a little research outside the bible for a change.

• The zeroth: If two systems are both in thermal equilibrium with a third then they are in thermal equilibrium with each othe
• The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.
• The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases.
• The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero.

I'm just wondering why they don't sell beer in packs bigger than 30

Are you agreeing with me that I found the First and Second Laws and now a Third by studying God's Word? Sounds like it.

Well, there's three things that ALWAYS work

1. a guy getting racked
2. a gal not wearing enough clothes
3. a monkey riding a dog

Okay, replace flying with going to the moon. Or splitting the atom. Or whatever. It doesn't matter what you compare it to, trying to declare there's a new scientific law because nobody has done something "yet" is scientifically ridiculous.

Let's start with this. In order to discuss your new law, please define "life".

No, I think you're really good a deluding yourself and justifying it through scripture.

That which the biochemist are trying to duplicate.

Steve,


Are you saying there is no evidence in God's Word for the three "laws" I mentioned?

as someone once surmised, the whole universe is inside a test tube on the shelf in a space alien child's room n the book case. it was an experiment that he barely managed a C plus grade for.

Throw 2 retards of the opposite sex in the same room for a few days and see what happens in 9 months. That proves what?

Astrobiologists are convinced they'll find life out there somewhere. However...
The least complicated single cell organism is so vastly complicated that the chances of all the molecules for it's existence being in the same place at the same time is one in billions, and that's not counting bringing it to life. The odds of it happening twice on 2 different planets is one in billions squared - a number so incredibly small that it's virtually impossible to happen. Getting them both to live is ludicrous.

Yet 3 out of 10 people believe in Bigfoot.

Got there before me (thanks Thermo 302!) Though I do believe the 3rd law should state absolute zero, to reduce confusion...

Perhaps you would have accepted my post with less attack if I did not use the word "Third Law" but another law. But I doubt it. The two concepts you mentioned are sorta like the creationist Sir Isaac Newton's, where he states a body at rest stays at rest unless acted on by an outside force. You use temperature instead of "body".

Whao Whao, you mean there aint no bigfoot?

There was one running around in the Green Swamp several decades ago. I have a T shirt to prove it.

The earth is not an isolated system. The sun continues to shine upon us every day.

Yeah, that "closed system" thing keeps getting missed by the folks using it as an apology for creationism.

We are all children of star dust. Of course, I don't expect Bible Believers to understand science.

To keep cops like you from going over the edge!!!!

...and a 6k year old terra firma!

Hardly.

Seeing as how infinite the universe is and the trillions and trillions and trillions of galaxies out there and the fact that we have a hard to getting out of the Milky Way galaxy it's not surprising that life has been found yet but who is to say what constitutes life. It's impossible to believe that we are the only planet in the infinite universe to support some type of life. Heck, it took billions of years for life on this planet to get to where it is today.

You're kidding, right?
1. There are plenty of Bible believers who understand science as well as the next guy. That's been true ever since the scientific age began.
2. Star dust? There's life in star dust? And you question a Bible believer's grasp of science?
3. So let's assume we all got here from somewhere else -- exactly what question does that answer?

Steve.

My paper is titled "Original thoughts and observations". My "discovery" today was an observation, not an original thought.

The building blocks of life. Exploding stars is the beginning of new life. We all come from the stars.

Where the the soul and spirit comes from is in the realm of theology not science.

So I take it you don't understand the origin of elements heavier then lithium?

I hope you are not expecting an A+ on that paper!!!!

I can think of 4.

Not really.

What are you made of?

We are mostly oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen.

And what are the most common non-inert elements in the universe?

hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon.

Have you given any consideration to the possibility that the correct primordial ingredients and conditions have yet to be determined?

That would explain your 'observation'.

I gotta know. Tell me how inert elements become ert. We all gotta know.

Steve.

Wow! What a coinkydink.

One can never the THIRD LAW OF PHYSICS.
And that is
"AFTER YOU SQUEEZE YOUR CHEEKS TOGETHER BE SURE YOU ARE CLOSE TO THE CRAPPER".
Alfred E Newman

The second law was discovered and verified in this "open system". The entire universe is subject to the Second Law. There is the concept call the ultimate heat death.

n thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged. According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy.

Notice, that nothing in the above implies you cannot have pockets of increasing order, as the entire system moves toward a state a maximum disorder......that state you referred to as ultimate heat death.

What would a caveman or neanderthal think of a piece of modern technology? Magic

I said molecules, not elements. What are the odds of a single gene floating around out there? How about the odds of thousands of genes coming together in a useful sequence. How about the thousands of other structures in a cell like mitochondria, etc? Every time you add something that's essential to life, the odds of it happening drop dramatically.

It seems as if nobody wants to tackle this very fundamental question. It is somewhat difficult to talk about something when you don't know what it is.

Kinda like art, yet people talk about art all the time.

Steve.

In order to evaluate your hypothesis, someone needs to check into this supposition. Maybe you can provide a source. Who are these people, and what are their methodologies?

Seriously though, it's always fascinating when people try to prove the existence of God using man's understanding of the universe.

What's even worse is when people try reject the existence of an Infinite God using man's finite understanding of the universe and prefer nothing as the creator.

No, it's not worse Ringman, it's the same thing.

I'm not sure who your post is directed at though. I don't doubt the existence of God, and never said I did.

One thing I'm certain of though. The best and brightest physicists in the world cannot "prove" His existence, one way or the other.

Much less the arm-chair variety of physicist.

To think otherwise is the ultimate example of hubris.

Apple and oranges. Not the same at all. If we are to discuss what started life, we must know exactly what life is. Art is an abstraction based in our imagination and has no precise definition that we can use to determine exactly what is and what is not art.

We can discuss how beautiful or ugly something living is or some piece of art is without knowing exactly the definitions of life or art, but to discuss when and how life starts you need to know what life is so you will know when you reach that boundary between life and nonlife.

I'll grant you that life and art are not the same. That's easy. But you grant me this -- I'm only saying that in both cases we talk about what we can't define. I was merely commenting on your statement, "It is somewhat difficult to talk about something when you don't know what it is." True of life. True of art.

I just recently had a lengthy discussion with my nephew who has the highest art degree he can get from the most prestigious art school in the nation, and he admits art can't be defined. If we can't adequately define what we can create, can we expect to fully define what we can't create?

In light of that, it's strange that the boundary you talk about -- between life and non-life -- is actually pretty clear. We know life when we see life.

Steve.

Don't know. Recently, I've been hearing that space and time are indeed finite.

Given geologic time though, I think nature as had opportunity to experiment with near unlimited permutations and combinations of materials. When compared with a few thousand researchers working since the 50's, man has only been at work for a second or two.

I do believe time is finite.

Wondering: If we actually knew time is finite, how many questions would that answer?

Steve.

You are granting time intelegence. Time is a measure of passing. It has no intelegence and can not combine anything.

Then you have to rely on chance. You want us to think stupid, dumb, blind, dead chance can produce what etremely intelegent, educated humans can't? If you had a trillion years squared amount of time chance could not come up with even one living cell. Check with someoone who has done extensive experiments in probablities and you will get quite a shock.

How old is the earth in this measure of passing you call time?

Not much, because it took nature over 250 million years to bring forth the first simple, single cellular, creatures that could be classified as living.

Untrue. Creationists misunderstand the Second Law if they believe that it's incompatible with evolution. Your understanding of it fails to take into account an exterior source of energy, i.e., the sun, which is a manifestation of the residual energy left from the Big Bang. While, as a whole, energy is decaying in the universe, the earth has been receiving a steady input of energy from the start, i.e., the earth is not an isolated system. The only difference in science between a law and a theory is that a law explains what will happen given X, while a theory explains the mechanism behind what happens in the presence of X. One isn't of superior rank to the other.

It's not about preference, it's about evidence.

antelope_sniper



You and I looked at the evidence and came to opposite conclusions. It's not about evidence. It about world view. One's world view is not tested by science or life's experiences. It is what we use to interpret evidence and experiences.

Aren't you the guy who said an ape was walking along and God put a soul in him? Then you didn't know if God put an ovum in an ape to get the first woman or exaclty what. Sure. You make a lot of sence.

Now let's look at your energy.

There is no denying energy comes from the sun. Where did the sun get its energy? Never mind that's a different questestion. Back to the energy coming from the sun. Who was running the energy coming from the sun?

In order for the energy to accomplish something useful there must be a plan. In order to generate a plan there must be a mind. To use the energy there must be an energy conversion mechinism to harness the energy otherwise the energy will destroy what it produces. Consider a cake with all the correct ingredience and baking at the right temperature with one caveat. We leave it in the oven too long. We converted the sun's energy to the correct heat but didn't control the length of time it was subject to the controled energy. Next we need some way to mix the correct chemicals in the corret ammounts. That would never happen by chance.

The Second Law predicts the chance of the correct mixture coming together is never going to happen. The Second Law predicts if the correct mixture came together the energy souce would destroy the mixture.

Your opinions are a result of the Second Law in action.

My world view is based on evidence. Your is based on faith.

Take a moment and notice what you did. You jumped from scientific argument, to the old "blind watchmaker argument", and just kind of blended the two together.

As for complexity in nature,
Complexity arises from simplicity all the time. The Mandelbrot set is an example (Dewey 1996). Real-life examples include the following: A pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom will develop convection currents that are more complex than the still water; complex hurricanes arise from similar principles; complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation; complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors; and complex organisms arise from simpler seeds and embryos.

You obviously don't understand world view. Evidence is just there.

When an objetive paleontologist looks at a fossil with a clear optical lens still intack or some soft tissue with blood still intact he realizes it can't be millions of years old based on scientific observations and deterioration rates.

When an evolitionist paleontologist looks at a fossil with a clear optical lens still in tact or some soft tissue with blood still intact he tries to figure out out it can be millions of years old and not deteriorated or completely mineralized.

Evidence is why a few Ph.D evolutionist scientists become creationist every year. Their world view gets hammered only so long before the have to reject their brainwashing from kindergarten through graduate school and look at the evidence objectively.

The reverse is never true; as long as we don't include philosophers and theologians.

Evidence is the reason 50% of believing Christians become non-believers while obtaining a four year college degree.

I never asserted any such thing. Asked to speculate, I offered some possibilities permissible within the boundaries of both Scripture and scientific discovery, but you grossly mischaracterize one of the possibilities I offered in the above false statement. Quite a low tactic. You must not be very confident in your position if you feel the need to resort to that sort of thing.

Well said, and exactly right.

Are viruses alive? When does life actually start and end? What parameters define what life is?

If you can distinguish between life and nonlife with no exceptions based on a rigid set of characteristics, then you need to write down how to do it and send it to doctors, lawyers, and scientists before you forget it since none of them have been able to do so.

It is, indeed, easy to tell between certain living and dead objects. A piece of cast iron is not alive while a playing puppy is. The problem comes when you search for the boundary between life and nonlife.

Being able to define that boundary is quite relevant to the discussion in this thread since it deals with that boundary.

The fact that it's difficult to distinguish at a certain boundary line, as I guess you know, lends credence to the idea that life gradually came into existence from non-life.

Bingo.

The lack of Christian apologetics in the church is why they leave. When they see the evidence they return to their roots.

If you never posted anything like what I ask and are denying it now, I am sorry I mistook you for another poster.

No, they are not:

I know what you're referring to, because I can recognize that tactic of argument, but it's a mischaracterization and you know it.

Evidence, huh? Is all the evidence in?

Steve.

What I know is you either posted something like that or you didn't. If you didn't, I'm sorry I confussed your position with another poster. There's nothing more than that. There is no tactic of an argument. You're trying to change the subject rather than accept an honest apology.

I see you don't understand Christian apologetics. Check out Who Rolled The Stone?. That book is a perfect example of some Christian apologetics. My brother thought it was a bunch of nonsence until he attened a leture on Christian aplogetics. Now he uses it.

By the way, you did a good job of side tracking me. I just realized I ask you why Ph.D evolutionary scientists are becoming creationists and you come up with this distraction. Good job! The college students don't know what's going on and get nailed by brainwashed professor who, occationally also become creationists.

In a sense I agree with you. The kids are being presented with a false choice, i.e., between science and revealed Christianity. Then they're shown the irrefutable evidence from science and asked to make a choice. Not having it explained that, understood correctly, there's no contradiction between the two, they make the "choice" for science against revealed Christianity because, based on what's been put before them, they'd feel like fools not to.

Not all of us are. Most of us figured out long ago that there was no conflict. Any conflict comes from a lack of understanding and preconceived notions that are almost always quite false.

The_Real_Hawkeye,

Your post reminds me of the fun movie, God is dead. I recomend it for a fun family movie.

+1

Do you mean this movie?

The_Real_Hawkeye,

Yea, that's it. The ending was a little corny, but the rest was good. At first I didn't understand but then realized the plot was connecting everyone to the college.

Thanks.